Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,  Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading there of, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable there to, have been complied with, namely:

Lloyd's Bill [Lords]
London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords]

Bill to be read a Second time.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Colonial Bank [Lords]
Bethlem Hospital[Lords]

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating
in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Surrey County Council Bill [Lords]

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Slough Trading Company Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed

Westminster City Council (General Powers) Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed

London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

London Electricity Supply (No. 2.) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

QUEEN MARY'S HOSPITAL, ROEIIAMPTON.

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the recent strike of the inmates of the Ministry's institution, Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, arising out of the stoppage of week-end leave; and is he prepared to cause instructions to be given at this and other similar institutions that cone under his authority that in future full facilities for week-end leave will be afforded those patients who are deemed medically fit for travelling and who are desirous of visiting their families?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS(Major Tryon): I have inquired into this matter and I find that a number of patients to whom the medical superintendent found
himself unable to grant leave deliberately absented themselves without permission. The hon. and gallant Member will realise that these men are in hospital solely for the purpose of treatment with the object of improving their condition, and that, in considering any question of leave, regard must be paid to the requirements of the treatment prescribed and to the effective management of the institution. I may point tint that the facilities granted are considerably in excess of those allowed by civil hospitals. I see no reason to alter the existing leave regulations which are working satisfactorily at other Ministry hospitals.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider granting this humanitarian concession to these men who have done their bit for the country?

Major TRYON: I have already gone into the question of leave.

NEED PENSIONS.

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which any need pension has been refused to mothers on the ground that their sons ought to support, or assist in supporting, them?

Major TRYON: I regret that the form in which the records of my Department are, kept does not enable me to give this information. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that claims to need pension would only be refused on the grounds indicated if the parent or parents had material sources of income and there were also surviving children who were able to contribute to their parents' support, but were not, in fact, doing so.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that he has already refused need pensions to widows whose sons are married and find it difficult to support their own families?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, but I understood the arrangements made by my predecessor were said to be satisfactory.

Mr. RICHARDSON: It was not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is there a uniform standard in these cases, or are different standards followed?

Major TRYON: These matters are, of course, dealt with by regular rules.

APPEALS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is satisfied that, under existing regulations, pensioners and their dependants who are unable to afford to pay the travelling expenses of any person or friend to appear with them before the appeals tribunal are able to do justice to their own cases; and, if not, will he take steps to amend the War Pensions Acts so that he may be in a position to make the necessary Regulations whereby each appellant shall be assured of the fullest opportunity of having his case properly presented to the tribunal?

Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on the same subject on the 18th December and the 19th March last.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the Minister satisfied that appellants have a proper opportunity of stating their case without this assistance? If not, will he make representations in the proper quarters?

Major TRYON: As the hon. Member knows, in a case where the applicant finds difficulty, it is already laid down that the Chairman is to render every possible assistance, and expenses can be obtained in respect of any evidence which, in the opinion of the tribunal, may be required.

Mr. PALING: In view of the continuous complaints and the number of hard cases arising under this head, is it not possible for the Minister to do something which will make it easier for appellants to present their claims?

Major TRYON: We are anxious to do justice in every way, but it is obvious that all applications cannot be granted, and it has been decided by the House that these questions should be settled by the tribunals and not by the Ministry.

VOLUNTARY FUNDS (GRANTS).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Minister of Pensions the amount of money which has been given in grants from the voluntary funds under the control of the Ministry since he came into office?

Major TRYON: The amount of the grants made during the period in question was £6, 000.

Mr. PALING: What is the nature of the qualification which an applicant must possess in order to get some of this money?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5 and 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) the names of the special committee at Newcastle who are charged with the duty of dealing with cases of forfeiture of widows' pensions on the grounds of alleged misconduct; and will he state how many such committees exist in Great Britain;
(2)how information is obtained of alleged misconduct of widows on which decisions of the special committees are based?

Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension as regards the special committee in Newcastle to which he refers. Under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, as amended by the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1917, the responsibility for deciding whether the pension granted to a widow in respect of the death of her husband in the great War has become forfeited, rests on the Special Grants Committee. The Special Grants Committee make inquiries in cases of this kind through various channels, including the police authorities, and it is the function of the War Pensions Committee to interview the widow, inform her of the complaints against her conduct, obtain her answer to those complaints, and generally to assist her in putting forward her case to the Special Grants Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: :Is the Minister aware that there are cases on record where no complaint has been lodged and where the only incident has been that a lady visitor called and disagreed with the forfeiture of the pensions; yet notwithstanding her report, the pensions have been forfeited, leaving widows with four children helpless?

Major TRYON: :I shall be glad to consider a case of that kind, but the hon. Member wrote to me about a case, and I
am bound to say that facts which he gave me in his letter confirmed me in my opinion as to the justice of the decision arrived at.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that misconduct which happened four years ago justifies the Special Grants Committee in depriving these widows of their pensions and the children of their support?

Major TRYON: :The case mentioned by the hon. Member—and it is not an isolated case—is one in which there were two illegitimate children.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that it is four years since the misconduct happened and not a word was ever said to the widow and it is only now they have taken away her pension when the children need more assistance than hitherto.

Major TRYON: I understand that we are not dealing with the question of the children but of the widows. I do not think the hon. Member realises how strong the feeling is among ex-service men against granting pensions to widows who misbehave themselves in a notorious and flagrant manner.

Mr. ROBINSON: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the desirability of amending the Royal Warrant so that the widows of other ranks may have the option of drawing a gratuity on re-marriage or being eligible for the re-issue of pension in the event of the second husband dying, as is the case with the widows of officers?

Major TRYON: I regret that I am unable to accept this proposal. Officers' widows have no option as between restoration of pension and a re-marriage gratuity. No gratuity is paid to an officer s widow who remarries but in certain cases, pension may be restored in whole or in part if "pecuniary circumstances justify this course. "In the corresponding cases of men's widows, there is no provision for restoration of pension but a gratuity is paid on re-marriage. This difference in practice was upheld by the Select Committee who considered the matter.

INSTRUCTIONS AND CIRCULARS.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will issue to Members, or lay upon the Table of the House Ministry of Pensions Instruction
No. 55, 10th July, 1924, Medical Services Instruction No. 566, 30th May, 1924, and Ministry of Pensions Circular No. 30?

Major TRYON: I shall be glad to supply a copy of Circular No. 30 to any Member who desires it. This Circular contains the substance of the Instructions mentioned, so far as they are of general interest, but they necessarily include also certain detailed instructions to the staff of the Ministry, and I am not prepared to depart from the normal practice of all Government Departments by adopting the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion with regard to them.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Have we not been informed in this House over and over again that no secret circulars are issued; and if we are told now that these circulars are in existence does the Minister not consider it right that not only Members of this House should be in possession of them but all those who are fighting for justice for these men?

Major TRYON: It is quite true the hon. and gallant Member has brought a charge against an awarding officer, but at the end of two months he has produced no evidence whatever in support of it, and his attack has been shown by the awarding officer concerned and by all the medical officers concerned to be absolutely inaccurate.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: The Minister has made a personal accusation against me, without telling the House why I did not give him assistance. The reason why I did not give him assistance was because I took it that what I said was confirmed by a medical officer in the Ministry of Pensions. I asked for a letter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"].

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member, clearly, must raise a point of this kind on the Estimates.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is an hon. Member not entitled by the courtesy of the House to make a personal explanation?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not during Questions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it customary for a Minister, in reply to a supplementary question, to make an attack on an hon. Member, when that hon. Member for the time being has no right to reply, because it is Question time?

Lieut.-Colonel ASTBURY: I beg to give notice that on an early date I shall raise this matter again.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. WINDSOR: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that in the Supplementary Vote for that Ministry provision was made for an additional sum of £920, 000 in respect of the payment of 'treatment allowances in excess of pension, he can state why there is a reduction in the Estimates for the year 1924-25 of £1, 140, 500 in the provision for treatment and treatment allowances, of which sum practically £500, 000 is in respect of allowances in excess of pension; and whether any instructions have been issued to the medical officers of the Ministry that they should as far as possible reduce the number of cases in which alowances should be paid even though the pensioner may be totally disabled, temporarily, as the result of his war disability?

Major TRYON: If the hon. Member will refer to the Supplementary Estimate for my Department he will see that of the £920, 000 mentioned in the first part of the question only £430, 000 was in respect of treatment allowances. The reduction in the Estimates for the cost of treatment during the present financial year anticipates a continuance of the decline in our requirements for treatment which has been a normal feature of pensions expenditure for several years past. No change has been made in the conditions of eligibility for treatment allowances, and no instructions in the sense suggested by the hon. Member have been issued.

PENSION (INCREASE) ACT, 1924.

Mr. WINDSOR: asked the Minister of Pensions whether arrears of pension from 1st July, 1923, are paid in all cases where the pensioner receives an increase under the Pension (Increase) Act, 1924; and, if not, why men are deprived of money to which they are apparently entitled under the Act?

Major TRYON: In the case of pre-War pensioners who were, on 1st July, 1923, in receipt of increases under the Pensions (Increase) Warrant of 1921, any increase due under the Pensions (Increase) Warrant, 1925, has been given from 1st July, 1923. Where the first claim to increase
under the Pensions Increase Warrants has been made since 1st July, 1923, the benefits of the Warrant of 1925 are granted as from the date of application, this being the earliest date from which any increase could be made under the Warrant of 1921. In the case of men resident overseas, the increase is granted from 7th August, 1924, i. e., the date, of the Act admitting overseas pensioners to these benefits.

LIFE CERTIFICATES (ATTESTATION).

Mr. ROBINSON: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions why an Order has been issued prohibiting secretaries of branches of approved societies signing life certificates as witness of the pensioner, and stating that this may only be done by the secretary at the registered office of the society; and whether he will revert to the practice that permitted a branch secretary to verify and certify a pensioner's signature?

Major TRYON: No such Order as is referred to has been issued. Under the terms of the Treasury Warrant prescribing the classes of persons who may attest life certificates, secretaries of branches of approved societies are ineligible to sign unless the branch is registered under the Friendly Societies Acts. If the branch is so registered, the signature of the secretary is, of course, accepted.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. STEPHEN: 17.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will favourably consider the request contained in the communication he has received from the Glasgow War Pensions Committee stating that there is general dissatisfaction by ex-service men regarding the Regulations of the Ministry?

Major TRYON: :I have considered this matter, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on the 26th March.

Mr. STEPHEN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Regulations of the Pensions Ministry, especially as they affect final awards, eligibility for treatment and allowances, seven years' limit, pensions appeal tribunals, assessment of
pensions in epileptic and chronic neurasthenic cases, education, and training and after-care of motherless children?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day).

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction on the Glasgow war pensions committee, representative of all parties, and that the Midlands Advisory Council and various other bodies connected with pensions administration have protested very strongly? Is he going to offer us no hope of improvement in connection with it?

Major COHEN: Is the Prime Minister aware that a memorial has been signed by 252 Members of all parties in this House asking him to set up this committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to discuss the matter with me after Questions.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I not have an answer to my supplementary question?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, I am aware of those facts.

CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Lieut.- Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 18 and 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether any regional advisory committee has protested against the method of procedure adopted by the Ministry at the last meeting of the Central Advisory Council and, if so, what are the committees that protested; and whether, at future meetings, he will arrange that officials of the Ministry shall only attend to furnish information if desired, and that any memoranda that may be issued for the council's consideration shall be circulated to the members of the council at least seven days prior to the date of the meeting of the council;
(2) Whether there has been any change in the membership of the Central Advisory Council; when the next meeting of the council will be held; and whether he will issue instructions that the council shall meet not less often than once every three months?

Major TRYON: The recent meeting of the Central Advisory Committee—the first since I was last in office—was summoned under abnormal conditions which, unfortunately, rendered it impracticable to observe the usual practice of circulating the memoranda beforehand in good time to the members; and it was on that ground that one council—the Midlands—passed a resolution expressing dissatisfaction. It is my intention to hold meetings at suitable intervals when matters appropriate for reference to the Committee arise, and I hope shortly to arrange one, though I am not, at the moment, in a position to state the exact date. No change has been made in the membership since the appointment at the beginning of the year of the present members of the Committee, which I would point out, must include officers of the Ministry under the express terms of Section 3 of the War Pensions Act, 1921.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer that part of the first question with regard to the officials of the Ministry attending?

Major TRYON: That has been answered. It is necessary under the Act that they should be there, and necessarily, therefore, we shall continue the present arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am asking whether they will be there simply to give information, and not to take the part which they do now.

Major TRYON: No. I am not prepared to alter an arrangement which is working perfectly well, and I think that the old arrangement is working a great deal better on the Central Committee than the new plan on the eight local councils.

SERVICE AND DISABILITY PENSIONS (ISSUE).

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that instructions are being issued by the Ministry of Pensions notifying pensioners in receipt of service and disability pensions that in future the service pension will be issued from the Service Department concerned and the disability pension by the Ministry of Pensions, and that the service pensions will be paid quarterly and the disability pensions weekly; whether it is anticipated that any economy will be effected by the issue
of pensions by two Departments; and whether he has taken into consideration the inconvenience caused to the pensioner?

Major TRYON: Service pensions which have hitherto been paid weekly with disability pensions by the Ministry of Pensions will in future be paid by the Service Department by which they are granted, and will, I understand, continue to be paid weekly as in the past. The change will effect a substantial economy in administration, and I see no reason to suppose that it will occasion any real inconvenience to the pensioners concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House I will call attention to this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has under consideration proposals to transfer the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Health and for the termination of the Ministry of Pensions as a, separate Department in 1927?

Major TRYON: No, Sir; the Government have no such proposals under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS (FEES).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that fees paid to registrars of marriages have been unaltered for many years, and that, consequent. upon the increased cost of living and the diminution of the number of marriages, due partly to the housing shortage, these officials are suffering hardship; and whether, in view of the fact that they are about the only public officials whose remuneration has not been raised to meet the cost of living, steps can be taken to repair this omission?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has under consideration the question of raising the fees of registrars for births and deaths; when the present scale of fees was
adopted; and whether he proposes introducing legislation at an early date with a view to placing such registrars on a salary basis?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. The reconstruction of the registration service has already been receiving my attention, and I hope to introduce legislation dealing with the subject as soon as circumstances permit. In connection with such legislation the present scale of fees, which dates substantially from 1836, and the general financial basis of the service will, undoubtedly, have to be reconsidered.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set up a committee to inquire into and report upon the whole question of police pensions as affecting those pensioners who retired before the 1st April, 1919, and those widows of police pensioners who retired before September, 1918, with a view to readjusting the present anomalies and to bringing the pensions of the less fortunate up to the higher scale?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I do not think there is any ground for the appointment of a committee to inquire into this subject.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 22.
asked the Home Secretary, with reference to his offer specially to consider the case of those police pensioners who were advised to retire from the service prior to the new scale of pensions which came into force in April, 1919, how many applications his Department has received for such special consideration; whether he has been able in any case to arrive at a decision favourable to those concerned; and whether he will state what the estimated cost would be of making a general concession in this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has brought to my notice four cases of the kind referred to. In three of these cases my inquiries have disclosed no ground on which I could suggest that the pension should be reassessed, and in
the fourth case my inquiries are not yet complete. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply to the hon. Member's previous question on the 2nd March.

Captain ARTHUR EVAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any cases from anywhere else, besides from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha)?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I have had any cases brought to my personal notice, but, of course, I cannot answer for others.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause the files to be examined on this matter, when I think he will find that there have been numerous cases brought to his notice, which would justify the appointment of a committee and would save the right hon. Gentleman a good deal of work?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member informs me that, of his knowledge, cases have been put before me, I will, of course, inquire into them.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the whole question might be reopened, in view of the very grave hardship involved?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member knows that there always must be a date fixed, and on one side or another there is nearly always hardship.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORMAN THORNE (NON-ATTENDANCE AT INQUEST).

Colonel DAY: 23.
asked the Home Secretary if he will explain why permission to attend the inquest on Miss Elsie Cameron, at Crowborough, on 16th April last, was refused Norman Thorne, who was, on 22nd April, executed for the murder of the said Elsie Cameron, in view of the fact that a person accused of another person's death has the right of attending the inquest in the same manner as any other member of the public and of giving evidence if so desired?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Thorne had been convicted of the murder of Miss Elsie Cameron and was under sentence
of death. It was, therefore, unnecessary and most undesirable that he should be present at the adjourned proceedings before the coroner.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the coroner's jury was not at all convinced of Thorne's guilt, and will he—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a proper question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BURSITIS).

Mr. TINKER: 24.
asked the Home Secretary what decision he has arrived at in regard to the inclusion of bursitis in the schedule of industrial diseases for miners' beat knee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No decision has yet been arrived at. As the hon. Member is perhaps aware, a Committee of the Medical Research Council has submitted a Report on miners' beat knee, beat hand and beat elbow, and the question—which is a very technical one—whether any alterations in the present descriptions of these injuries are necessary, is being carefully considered, in the light of that Report. The information in regard to the case which the hon. Member was good enough to bring to my notice, will also be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOURCONFERENCE (NIGHT BAKING).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he;has yet decided what attitude the British Legation shall take up at Geneva at the coming International Labour Conference in regard to the general principle of the draft Convention on night baking?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir; the British delegates will, having regard to the findings of the Royal Commission, state that their Government is unable at the present time to ratify the draft Convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORPHIA, HEROIN AND CODEINE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Dome Secretary if he will state, for the year 1921, how much, respectively, of morphia. heroin and codeine was made
by the two factories in Edinburgh; how much of each of these drugs was exported by British firms; where they were sent; end how were they despatched, whether shipped or sent by parcel post?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer contains a number of figures and is rather long, I will, with the. hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, if my right hon. Friend will inform. me that the information indicates that these drugs are only sent out for proper purposes.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have given the hon. and gallant Member a very full answer, and if he is not satisfied, perhaps he will put a further question on the Paper.

Following is the reply:.

The statistics for 1924 are not yet completed, but I can give provisional figures. The two manufacturing firms made 99, 400 ozs. of morphine, 16, 700 ozs. of heroin and 153, 300 ozs. of codeine. 88, 870 ozs. of morphine were exported, but this figure include the morphine contained in preparations made direct from raw opium. 10, 704 ozs. of heroin were exported. Statistics of the exports of codeine, which is not a dangerous drug, are not available. The destinations of the exports were approximately as follows: Europe received 60, 000 ozs. of morphine and 7, 600 ozs. of heroin; Asia, 12, 500 ozs. of morphine and 600 ozs. of heroin; Africa, 1, 400 ozs. of morphine and 140 ozs. of heroin; North and South America, 9, 000 ozs. of morphine and 700 ozs. of heroin; Australasia, 5, 700 ozs. of morphine and 1, 600 ozs. of heroin. The statistics do not distinguish between consignments sent by parcel post and others.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT CLUBS BILL.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Home Secretary what decision the Government has come to with regard to the Bill for the regulation of bogus night clubs; and whether it is proposed to proceed with this Measure during the present Session?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a consideration of the time available for legislation this Session, it has been
decided not to proceed with this Bill during the present Session.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that the only reason, or is it that there are still difficulties in drafting a Bill? Would it be possible to have it introduced in another place, and make some progress there?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member asks me whether the reason I have given is the correct one. It is.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet come to a conclusion as to what a bogus night club is?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes; I have satisfied myself as to what a bogus night club is.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (ADMISSION THROUGHIRISH FREE STATE PORTS).

. Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 29.
asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to prevent the irregular admission of aliens to this country through Southern Ireland?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The safeguard of our interests in this matter consists in the existence at the ports of the Irish Free State of the same machinery as exists at the ports of this country operated by the Free State Government on lines similar to those of my own administration. I have no evidence showing that undesirable aliens are coming into this country through Southern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HORSED VEHICLES (WARNING APPLIANCES).

Mr. HOMAN: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the increasing number of street accidents of all kinds caused by horsed vans and carts turning into or out of thoroughfares without prior warning, with the exception; perhaps, in some cases of a noneffective whistle from the driver, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that all horsed vans and carts have effective warning appliances?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. I am not satisfied that there is any real necessity for such a requirement, and in any case it would require legislation to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Captain A. EVANS: Will the Minister avail himself of the suggestions of the London Traffic Advisory Committee?

Colonel ASHLEY: If my hon. and gallant Friend will study my answer, be will see that this proposal would require legislation, and nothing can be done without legislation.

Captain EVANS: Do we understand that none of the recommendations of this Committee will require legislation?

Colonel ASHLEY: I did not say that, but as regards this particular question, that would require legislation.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (POLICE TIMING).

Captain BRASS: asked the Home Secretary whether he has evidence to show that the timing of motor vehicles over measured distances by plain-clothed police officers is an efficient method of preventing dangerous driving; and, if not, whether he will consider any alternative method having that object in view?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The timing of motor vehicles is an efficient method of detecting cases of driving at excessive speed. In the offence of driving to the danger of the public other elements, apart from speed, have to be taken into account. I should be happy to consider any practicable method of preventing such offences.

Captain BRASS: asked the Home Secretary how many motorists who were found to be exceeding the speed limits of 10 or 20 miles per hour in the police controls operated by the Metropolitan Police over the week-ends 28th to 30th March and 4th to 6th April, respectively, were prosecuted for exceeding the limits, and how many for dangerous driving?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Seventy-four motorists who were found to be exceeding the speed limit of 10 miles per hour, and 93 who were found to be exceeding the speed limit of 20 miles per hour in the controls operating over the weekend 28th to 30th March were prosecuted
for exceeding the limits, and 15 for dangerous driving. Sixty-four motorists who were found to be exceeding the speed limit of 10 miles per hour, and 80 who were found to be exceeding the speed limit of 20 miles per hour (including four for exceeding the limit of 12 miles per hour for heavy vehicles) in the controls operating over the week-end 4th to 6th April, were prosecuted for exceeding the limits, and 12 for dangerous driving.

Captain BRASS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the speed is taken as the criterion of dangerous driving; whether any consideration is taken of the amount of traffic on the road at the time, and the braking efficiency of the particular vehicle concerned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: :I think I may say that all relevant considerations are taken into account.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members of this House frequently break the speed limit by driving on trams?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members had better make these confessions in private.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: On a point of Order. May I say that I never drive on trams?

Captain BRASS: 34.
asked the Home Secretary at what alleged speeds in excess of 10 miles per hour in 10-mile speed limits in the Metropolitan area motorists are prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit; and at what increased alleged speeds this prosecution is substituted for the more serious one of dangerous driving?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The police are anxious not to enforce the law with unnecessary rigour against motorists, and do not prosecute if a 10-mile speed limit has been exceeded by only a moderate amount; but it is impossible to say that either in this or in the matter of dangerous driving there is any hard and fast rule.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOYAL ORDER OF ANCIENT SHEPHERDS (ASHTON UNITY).

Mr. MARCH: 35.
asked the Home Secretary what amount of contributions has been paid by the members of the Loyal Order of Ancient Shepherds (Ashton
Unity) for sickness benefit and funeral benefit for each year since 1882 up to the last available return; and what amount has been paid to the members in sickness benefit and funeral benefit each year during the same period?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The records for the years up to 1914 have now been destroyed. As this society has 900 branches, preparation of the figures required for the last 10 years would involve the examination of 9, 000 files, and I do not think that the result would justify the labour and expense involved.

Mr. MARCH: Is not the society registered, and could not the right hon. Gentleman get the returns from the whole of the branches from the Central Office?

Mr. GUINNESS: This is the information that has been given to me. If the answer the hon. Gentleman requires could have been got with a small amount of labour it certainly would have been got.

Mr. MARCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether he cannot get these returns from the Central Office?

Mr. GUINNESS: I will ask again.

Mr. MARCH: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES BILL.

Captain MacMILLAN: 36.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now state when he hopes to introduce the Factories Bill?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret I am not yet in a position to do this. The terms of the Bill are still under consideration on various points in the light of recent representations.

Captain MacMILLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the urgency of this question in view of the position still existing in many parts of the country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have the urgency of the question very frequently before me.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Government proceed with the First Reading stage this Session?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That must depend upon the date on which I introduce the Bill, and upon the business before the House.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to give a pledge to pass the Bill this Session?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite impossible, having regard to the activities of the hon. and gallant Gentleman!.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-INSPECTOR JOHN CARTER.

. Mr. HAYES: 37.
. asked the Home Secretary whether ex-Inspector John Carter, Metropolitan Police, prior to being placed on retirement, submitted a report to the Commissioner of Police, New Scotland Yard, containing allegations against his superior officers; if so, what is the nature of the allegations; whether they were inquired into; whether ex-Inspector Carter was called upon to substantiate them; and, if so, with what result?

Sir W. J0YNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HAYES: Yes, if;the answer will probably be that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to receive one or two Members and myself who are interested in this matter.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes; I have never refused to see either the hon. Member or any other Member of the House.

Mr. HAYES: Without the right hon. Gentleman having previously made up his mind definitely to refuse?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have always an open mind.

Following is the answer.

In 1918 Carter submitted a report to the then Commissioner in which his main complaint was against an order the Commissioner had issued that any inspectors employed in testing drivers of cabs and omnibuses must hold a satisfactory certificate of competency in motor engineering. The report also contained references to superior officers which amounted to accusations of incompetence or inattention to their duties; an allegation that Carter had been victimised because he had asked for promotion; and threats of the action he would take if the Commissioner did not withdraw his order. Carter's allegations were not.

made the subject of any formal inquiry, as the work of the officers to whom they referred was perfectly well known to the Commissioner. As already explained, in reply to previous questions, the Commissioner decided to allow Carter to retire on pension, and in view of the insubordinate attitude which he had taken up I think that this was the most considerate treatment which he could have been afforded.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPRING ELECTORAL REGISTER (COST).

Mr. EVERARD: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers of the production of the Spring Register of Parliamentary and Local Government Electors; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider legislation to reduce the registers to one annually, and reduce the qualifying period from six months to three months?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The cost of the Spring Register is, approximately, £445, 000, which is shared equally between the taxpayers and ratepayers; but it must not be assumed that the saving consequent on the adoption of the proposal in the question would amount to this sum. The Government are examining the possibility of effecting economies in connection with the registration of electors, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Home Secretary whether he can assure the House that adequate steps are being taken to prevent the establishment in this country of nuclei or groups in various trades and industries for the encouragement of treasonable practices, as recommended in the Manifesto of Comintern to the World-Proletariat, signed by various members of the Russian Soviet Government, which was published in the "Pravda" on 6th July, 1924?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is obviously impossible to give any particular assurance; but the House may be certain that all activities of this kind are closely watched with a view to any action that may be desirable.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to those engaged in the distribution of this treasonable propaganda having ample funds at their disposal; and has he any information as to where these funds come from?

Mr. W. THORNE: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) if he is still watching the activities of the Conservative Associations?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DENTAL SERVICES.

Mr. GROVES: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of local education authorities, counties, county boroughs, boroughs and urban districts, separately, who have not provided a school dental service; and whether, in view of the value of these special services, he proposes to take any steps to secure its provision in the areas in which it has not yet been initiated?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the answer to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GROVES: Are not the number of authorities not providing dental clinics numerous I Is that why the answer is so long?

Lord E. PERCY: No; if the hon. Gentleman wants to know the total, it is 48, who have no provision. Of these 14 have already begun to make it.

The answer is as follows:.

The following table gives the information asked for in the first part of the question:.

Table showing under Types of Areas the Number of Local Education Authorities who have not yet started a School Dental Service..


Counties(63)
County Boroughs (82)
Boroughs(124)
Urban Districts(44)
Total (317)


12
4
21
11
48

Of these 48 local education authorities, 14 have made definite proposals for the initiation of dental schemes which are now under the Board's consideration. In 13 other cases the Board have already written to the local education authority urging them to make a beginning. The Board are fully aware of the value of school dental services, and aim at securing a comprehensive scheme of dentistry for all school children.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the position of superannuated teachers, under the Act of 1898 who retired before 1919, and the disparity of their treatment in England as compared with Scotland; and whether any increase in their average pension of £37 per annum will be made?

Lord E. PERCY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply (a copy of which I am sending him) given by me on 19th February last to the hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock). I understand that any increases given to teacher-pensioners in Scotland, otherwise than under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, have not involved any additional charge upon the Exchequer.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers have retired with 30 years' service and, after attaining the age of 60, have received a pension and retiring allowance?

Lord E. PERCY: The total number of teachers who had, up to 21st March, 1925, received awards on the ground of age under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, is 14, 360, and under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, 5, 565.

Mr. BROWN: My question was a specific question as to the number of teachers already retired before pension, and after they had reached the age of 60 had received a pension?

Lord E. PERCY: Then I am afraid I did not understand that. If the hon. Gentleman will read his question again he will see that what he asked was particulars as to the teachers who have received a pension or retiring allowance after reaching the age of 60.

Mr. BROWN: If the right man reads the question he what I ask is,
 how many teachers have 30 years' service and, after age of 60 have received a retiring allowance? 
That is the question.

Lord E. PERCY: Yes.

Mr. BROWN: I think that is quite explicit.

Mr. SPEAKER: The han. Member had better put the question down in another form.

Mr. BROWN: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker. you or the Noble Lord can tell me how to put it down so as to make it plain?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister will, no doubt, help the hon. Member.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SUBSTANTIVEGRANT).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Draft Regulation for Article 6 of the Elementary Education (Substantive Grant), 1925, is so framed as to have the effect of excluding practically all the English provincial boroughs and urban districts whose rates are high; and will he reconsider the figures of toe prescribed amount and the prescribed proportion so that this additional grant is participated in by the highly rated areas which do not now receive any relief?

Lord E PERCY: I do not see my way to modify the Article in the manner suggested. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that the ordinary grant is differentiated in favour of all areas in which the assessable value is low.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the Noble Lord satisfied that the educational efficiency of the services in these particular areas can be maintained without this particular grant?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think I should he satisfied even with it!.

SCHOOL REORGANISATION.

Miss WILKINSON: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many authorities, if any, have agreed to reorganise their schools according to Circular 1, 350, at the age of 11; and how many are making nine the dividing age?

Lord E. PERCY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply (of which I am sending her a copy) given by me on the 16th March, 1925, to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Mr. C. W. Crook), in which I indicated that the suggestions made in the Circular are not intended necessarily to be applied by local authorities to the schools in their areas as a whole.

SCHOOL BUILDING (SHORTAGE OF BRICKLAYERS).

. Mr. MARCH: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education in how many cases, if any, the building of elementary, central or secondary schools has been impeded in any way by the shortage of bricklayers or other workmen; and, if in any, will he state in what part of the country this occurred, and when?

Lord E. PERCY: I have not called on local education authorities to supply specific information on this point. Cases come to my notice from time to time where the progress in school building has been impeded by shortage of labour, but it is obvious that a general state of labour shortage in an area will tend to delay the commencement of building, even more than it will tend to impede progress on building already begun.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on some of our new elementary schools in South Yorkshire a number of the tradesmen are working 10 hours and more per day?

Lord E. PERCY: I was not aware of that, but I am very glad to hear it.

SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.

Mr. SEXTON: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of supplementary teachers engaged in the teaching profession in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with over 15 years' service who, notwithstanding such service, are excluded from the pensions list; and if he can see his way to give favourable consideration to their future inclusion in such list?

Lord E. PERCY: I regret that the information asked for in the question, so far as it relates to England and Wales, is not available, and there is, I understand, no category of supplementary
teachers in Scotland, nor, so far as I am aware, in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that I cannot see my way to adopt the suggestion made in the second part of the question.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these men have given over 40 years' service?

Lord E. PERCY: The question of supplementary teachers is rather a difficult one, because they are not members of the teaching service, but are only recognised while employed at particular schools, and recognition is liable to be withdrawn at any moment. That is why they do not come under, and cannot, I think, come under, a universal compulsory contributory scheme.

Mr. SEXTON: If a trade union qualification is necessary is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these teachers, being not eligible for membership of the National Union of Teachers, have a trade union of their own which is recognised by the trade union movement?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not referring to any trade union, I am referring to the difficulty of imposing a compulsory contributory superannuation scheme on a teacher who has no status, no permanent status, and whose status is only in relation to a particular school.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: 45
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the Reports on the quality of the smokeless fuel produced by the low temperature carbonisation process and consequent elimination of the smoke nuisance if it is universally employed for household fuel, whether the Government is prepared to give facilities for bringing an Act of Parliament into force providing for the compulsory carbonisation of bituminous coal before use?

The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as the Government are satisfied that these processes can be operated successfully on a commercial scale, they will consider the steps to be taken to achieve the object which we all desire.

Sir H. SLESSER: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether having regard to the evidence taken before the Depart-
mental Committee of the Ministry of Health on smoke and noxious vapours abatement in 1920, any steps have been taken by that Ministry on the subject?

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: Steps have been taken towards improving the administration of the present. law, and the Government hope also to introduce legislation on the subject next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET PROPOSALS.

MCKENNA DUTIES.

Mr. HANNON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the largely-increased importation of articles to which the new duties included in the Budget provisions for the current year will apply on and after 1st July; and, seeing that this abnormal volume of imports is calculated to defeat to some extent the purpose of the new duties, namely, to raise revenue, and that in addition considerable injury is being inflicted upon certain British industries, whether he will say what steps the Government propose to take to safeguard the revenue and the interests of British trade?

Mr. WELLS: 102.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps it is proposed to take to prevent abnormal quantities of cinematograph films being imported into this country, in view of the new duties on these goods?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 104.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has so far been any indication of the importation of foreign motor cars in excess of the normal average since he made his Budget statement; and, if so, will he consider making retrospective to 28th April, any import duties that might be placed on foreign motor cars as a result of the Finance Bill?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I will answer these questions together. I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams).

Mr. HANNON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the activity of a large number of agents for foreign manufacturers in this
country at the present time, and the extent to which importing houses are enlarging their orders, in order to get over paying the duties after 1st July?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Very little has occurred up to the present. The very little that has occurred of extra importation was, of course, the result of decisions taken before the Budget was announced. I have heard that there is a possibility of a large excess of orders being placed at this time, and that is why I thought it very necessary to give the public caution which I did yesterday that we should hold ourselves perfectly free, in the event of any extensive importation, to ask the House to give us powers to impose taxes retrospectively from the date of my announcement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it supposed to be a crime to import these articles? What is all this talk about warnings?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no question of moral turpitude, but only the great importance of protecting the revenue, and also of not allowing trade to be violently dislocated by an altogether undue influx of imports.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, since yesterday, he has discovered any precedent for a retrospctive import tax being imposed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not occupied my time since yesterday in researches into precedents. It is quite reasonable, if you give a very long time for the discussion of taxes, to make sure that the purpose of Parliament is not defeated in the interval.

Major CRAWFURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman occupy his time in seeing if there is a precedent?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Every precedent has to have a start.

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter will have to be debated should the occasion arise.

93. Mr. FENBY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of complete gramophones imported during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924; and can he state the amount of duty collected on the same during these periods?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to this question involves a tabular statement of figures, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement.

STATEMENT showing the total Number of Gramophanes and Phonographs imported into the United Kingdom during each of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, and the net amount of duty collected in the same periods.

Year (1)
Numbers imported (2)
Net amount of duty collected (3)





£


1922 
…
118,248
34,714


1923*
…
72,220
28,159


1924*
…
66,964
2,167†


* As from 1st April, 1923, the figures relate to Gre at Britain and Notheran Ireland only.


†The duty lapsed on 1st August, 1924.

Captain BENN: 94.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount collected under the McKenna Duties on children's toys during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that the information required is not available.

Captain BENN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea what the product of this fruitful source of revenue might be?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. I gather, however, that the only toys that would be affected would be toy musical instruments.

Commander BELLAIRS: 100.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he v ill consider the complication! that formerly existed through what are called commercial cars not being subjected to Motor Tax on import; whether he will make the tax comprehensive so as to include all motors; and, in the event of being unable to do so, whether he will insist that when once a car is imported as a pleasure car there can be no refund because of subsequent conversion to a commercial car?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not agree to extend the scope of the new Import
Duties in the sense suggested in the second part of the question. I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's other suggestions.

Mr. HARRIS: Is a car used by a commercial traveller a. commercial car, or is it a car for pleasure purposes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not attempt to interpret the Acts of Parliament without due notice.

ENTREPOT TRADE.

Captain BENN: 95.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the inconvenience and loss arising to those engaged in the entrepot trade owing to the inability to obtain rebates, he is prepared to establish in London a free port, similar to that in existence in such a, port as Hamburg?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to accept the implication that the existing facilities for the treatment of transit traffic, for the duty-free warehousing of goods pending determination of destination and for the repayment of duty by way of drawback, are insufficient to meet the requirements of the entrepot trade, or that the establishment of a free port would confer any substantial advantages, having regard to all the considerations involved.

Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received no responsible representations to show that these protective measures are seriously threatening the entrepot trade of London?

Mr. CHURCHILL: None.

EMPIRE PRODUCTS.

Captain BENN: 99.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has formed any estimate of the revenue to be derived from the products of Empire origin under the duties imposed or reimposed in his Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is estimated that the revenue to be derived in a full year from Empire products (excluding Great Britain) at the preferential rates of duty will be as follows:

£


Silk and artificial silk 
…
…
25,000


Hops
…
…
20,000


New import duties
…
…
400,000

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman make this as his contribution to the fiscal unity of the Empire?

ARTIFICIAL SILK.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 105.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the sums that he estimates to obtain in the year 1925-26, and in a full year from the Customs duties on artificial silk?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures are as follow:

£


1925–26 
…
…
…
600,000


Full year 
…
…
…
1,000,000

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Mr. THURTLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the proposal contained in the new insurance scheme, whereby the means limit will be abolished for old age pensions so far as certain persons are concerned, he can hold out any hope of abolishing the means limit altogether?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can add nothing to the statements on the subject of old age pensions which have already been made in this connection.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 96.
asked the Minister of Health whether there is any provision in the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill to provide pensions for the widows of police constables who retired from the force before September, 1918, and whose widows are not in receipt of or at present entitled to receive a pension?

Sir JAMES REMNANT: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the position of widows of police officers, who had retired before September. 1918, under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill: and if they are included amongst those who will benefit under that Bill?

Mr. HAYES: 89.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill does not explicitly take cognisance of the position of the widows of police officers who retired prior to September, 1918, and who are not beneficiaries under the Police Pensions
Acts although their husbands were contributors to police pension funds; and whether he can state if they are covered by the terms of the Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Widows and orphans of such police officers who died before the commencement of the Act will be entitled to benefit subject to the provisions of Clause 18 of the Bill. Where after the commencement of the Act a claim arises in respect of such a police officer, the claim will have to be considered with reference to his position in regard to insurance since his retirement.

Mr. OLIVER: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill persons at present entitled to pension on reaching the age of 70 will only receive a pension if they are insured persons or widows of insured persons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Bill proposes to relieve insured persons and their wives or widows from the necessity of satisfying the means test and certain other tests specified in the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924. But it does not deprive other persons of their rights under those Acts.

Mr. THURTLE: 90
asked the Minister of Health whether, under the new provisions for pensions it is proposed that earnings will not be taken into account in considering the eligibility or otherwise of any applicant for an old age pension after 1st July, 1926?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative so far as concerns persons who are within the scope of the insurance scheme.

Mr. LUNN: 103
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the annual cost to the employers, to the mineral royalty owners, and to the whole of the workers engaged in the coal-mining industry by reason of their payments under the proposed contributory insurance scheme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. The proposed contributory insurance scheme is framed on a national basis, and not on the basis of segregation of industries. Estimates of the produce of the contributions, and the value of the benefits, have therefore
been prepared for the scheme as a single whole, but are not available for each separate industry.

Mr. LUNN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take any steps to make these royalty owners, who toil not neither do they spin, but receive millions of pounds annually from this industry, pay contributions to the pension scheme?

Oral Answers to Questions — OPERATIONS ON BABIES (ACCOMMODATION FOR MOTHERS).

56: Colonel DAY asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that Westminster Hospital has provided facilities enabling mothers to be accommodated in the hospital to nurse back to health their babies who have undergone serious surgical operations, and that many similar operations are performed in different parts of the country at institutions governed by the local boards of guardians, he is prepared to recommend to local unions the advisability of making provision for such cases, in order that every endeavour shall be made to save the lives of those babies who have to undergo these operations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the nature of the arrangements to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but I am making inquiries in the matter and will communicate with him further.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Royal Commission on Health Insurance will be published?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. I cannot add anything to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Lon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Oakley) on Thursday last.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is it intended to ask;he Royal Commission to issue an interim report on medical benefit?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

SICKNESS AND DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: 76.
asked the Minister of Health the number of days for
which sickness and disablement benefit were paid under the National Health insurance Acts during the respective years 1912 to 1923 showing the number and amount for men women separately?

The approximate amounts paid in sickness and disablement benefits under the
National Health Insurance Acts in England and Wales during the respective years 1912 to 1923 for
men and women separately are as follows:—


Year
Amounts paid (see footnote)


Sickness Benefit
Disablement Benefit


Men
Women
Men
Women






£
£
£
£


1912
…
…
…
—
—
—
—


1913 
…
…
…
3,632,000
1,776,000
—
—


1914 
…
…
…
4,032,090
1,738,000
125,000
37,000


1915
…
…
…
3,163,000
1,399,000
516,000
211,000


1916
…
…
…
2,711,000
1,182,000
658,000
 308,000


1917 
…
…
…
2,503,000
1,164,000
719,000
358,000


1918 
…
…
…
2,905,000
1,451,000
747,000
397,000


1919
…
…
…
3,160,000
1,329,000
786,000
434,000


1920 
…
…
…
3,753,000
1,696,000
1,115,000
634,000


1921 
…
…
…
4,861,000
2,313,000
1,701,000
988,000


1922 
…
…
…
5,706,000
2,506,000
2,155,000
1,172,000


1923 
…
…
…
5,248,000
2,532,000
2,430,000
1,324,000


Note. —Sickness benefit began in January, 1913, and disablement benefit in July, 1914.

Exact particulars are not available as to the number of days for which sickness and disablement benefit were paid, but the following tabular statement furnishes certain estimates that have been made as.

Period
Average number of week per annum estimated to be represented by
the amount paid in benefits


Sickness Benefit
Disablement Benefit


Men
Women
Men
Women


1913–1921
…
…
6,300,000
3,790,000
2,975,000
1,550,000


1922
…
…
7,250,000
4,000,000
5,250,000
3,000,000


1923
…
…
6,750,000
4,250,000
6,000,000
3,500,000

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DWELLING-HOUSES(CONVERSION INTO CLUBS, ETC.).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 57
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from local authorities in favour of powers being granted to them to prevent the conversion of existing dwelling-houses into clubs, garages and other purposes; and what reply has he made'?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIA: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, cirulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

to the number of weeks represented by the amounts paid. In making these estimates account has to be taken of a number of uncertain factors, and the results can only be regarded as rough approximations.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received some representations from local authorities on the subject in question, but for reasons which I have previously stated I am not satisfied that there is a case for further restrictive legislation of the kind suggested at the present time.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, especially in the East End of London, many thousands of people have been deprived of housing
accommodation by this growing practice, and will he make a special investigation in that part of London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

RURAL COTTAGES.

Captain EDEN: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of rural cottages in the county of Warwick. normally occupied by agricultural workers, which are now being rented as dwellings for week-ends by visitors from the towns; whether he is aware that this practice is creating difficulties in the housing of the agricultural population: and whether he can take any steps in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not been drawn to any increase in this practice. The matter is not one in regard to which I have any power enabling me to intervene, and I am afraid that it is not practicable to introduce legislation on the subject.

Captain EDEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that this practice is increasing in Warwickshire, and that in one village 20 cottages have recently been converted for this purpose? Will he make inquiries into the matter.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it necessary for Members of this House to prepare accurate statistics for the Minister of Health before he takes any action or makes investigation?

WEIR HOUSES.

Captain BRISCOE: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have considered the Report of the court of inquiry into the methods and conditions of building the Weir steel house; whether they propose to accept the conclusions arrived at by the court; and whether subsidy will now be payable in respect of Weir houses which fulfil the conditions laid down in the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to all these questions is in the affirmative.

BRICKS (QUALITY).

Mr. HURD: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether complaints have reached
him as to the quality of some of the bricks used in working-class houses erected recently; and what inquiries he has made ir to the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No complaints have been received by my Department as to the quality of bricks used in working-class houses erected recently.

DEMONSTRATION HOUSES.

Captain CAZALET: 72
asked the Minister of Health whether all the money allocated to the building of demonstration houses has been expended; and, if not, what amount remains over?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of the £50, 000 voted for the purpose of special grants for demonstration houses, £34, 000 has already been allocated.

Mr. PALING: How many of these houses are already let?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: None

CASUAL. WARDS.

Mr. GROVES: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that planks are still used for sleeping accommodation in numerous casual wards; and whether he will urge the various boards of guardians to abolish the use of such and provide accommodation more suitable.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question put on the 8th April, of which I am sending hint a copy.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will amend the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, to that it will be obligatory on workhouse authorities to supply clean night clothing, proper sleeping accommodation, and clean bedelothing for casuals.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will read the Order to which he refers, he will see that it provides that
 Proper sleeping accommodation, bed-clothing and means of communication with a responsible officer shall be provided for the casuals and that suitable night clothing shall be supplied to them.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the provision of proper night clothing and proper sleeping accommodation is a matter of varying difference between boards of guardians, and some of them are very lax about it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Those are the precise words which the hon. Gentleman himself suggested.

Mr. RICHARDSON: My point is that orders ought to be given to boards of guardians to treat these people decently.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member asked me whether I will amend the Order so as to make it obligatory on workhouse authorities to supply clean night clothing, proper sleeping accommodation and clean bedclothing for casuals. I have pointed out that the Order does make that obligatory.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am afraid not.

BLIND PERSONS.

Mr. GROVES: 59.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider making representations to the tramway, omnibus, and railway undertakings to effect arrangements whereby free or reduced travelling expenses can be granted to the blind workers who are being trained or employed in the various workshops or institutions opened in connection with the operations of the Blind Persons Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Most of the local authorities under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, which are owners of tramway or omnibus undertakings already provide travelling facilities free or at reduced prices for blind persons. As regards railway undertakings, representations were conveyed by my Department to the railway companies, who felt unable to make any concessions to the civilian blind in this matter.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council will not grant a. pass to a man working in West Ham, and vice versa, and therefore the precise application of the answer does not apply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case.

Mr. ROBERTYOUNG: 73.
asked the Minister of Health what is the total number of blind persons in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively; and how many of these men and women are in receipt of an old age pension from 50 years of age and upwards?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the most recent returns there are 36, 518 blind persons in England and Wales. On 31st March last, 12, 024 of those persons between the ages of 50 and 70 were in receipt of the old age pension. Blind persons over 70 receive the old age pension on the ground of age and not of blindness, and no separate figures are available for this group. As regards Scotland, the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

Mr. YOUNG: 74.
also asked the Minister of Health whether all local authorities concerned are giving effect to the provisions of the Blind Persons Act, 1920; and whether he can give the number of blind persons who are unemployed and employed, respectively, and the number of those who are under training and of those who are trained but unemployed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the latest figures at present available relate to the year 1923: of the blind population over school age, 20, 759 were then returned as unemployable, 8, 234 as employed, 1, 246 as under training, and 880 as trained but unemployed.

GENERAL NUR, SING COUNCIL.

Major BARNETT: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether the General Nursing Council for England and Wales has yet submitted for his approval rules providing adequately for the direct representation of registered nurses on the council, and the prescribed scheme of training required by the Nurses Registration Act, 1919; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to deal with these matters?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The General Nursing Council have submitted a revised scheme for the election of nurse members and rules governing the training of candidates for admission to the register. In accordance with the promise given by my predecessor, I am prepaid to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to examine the election scheme and to report upon the desirability of making the adoption of the Council's syllabus of training compulsory.

KEN WOOD ESTATE.

Mr. HURD: 68.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the cause of the delay in the opening to the public of the Ken Wood estate and when it will be opened?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the London County Council have had some difficulty with regard to the fencing of the estate, but they hope it will be opened to the public next month.

FOOD PRESERVATIVES(REGULATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a resolution passed by a general meeting of the Hull Retail Grocers Association protesting against the proposals of the draft Regulations issued by himself with regard to preservatives in food, and asking that the operations of the Regulations should be postponed for a sufficient length of time to enable existing stocks to be disposed of, and for other concessions; and what action he proposes to take with regard to this resolution?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir: I have received the resolution referred to. It is my intention to fix the date of operation of the Regulations so as to allow a reasonable time for the disposal of existing stocks. The other matters referred to in the resolution are under consideration.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. LANSBURY: 75.
asked the Minister of Health how many old age pensioners were in receipt of outdoor relief on 31st December, 1924, and the number in receipt of institutional relief on the same day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question put down by him on Tuesday last.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I got no particulars in that answer as to the number?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken. They were contained in the statement I will send him a copy of the answer.

WATER SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether, when, and in what form, it is proposed to introduce legislation for safeguarding supplies and preventing pollution of underground water, as proposed in the Report of the Advisory Committee on Water, recently issued by the Ministry of Health; and what steps will meanwhile be taken to consult the interests affected?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I anticipate that the views of the interests affected by the Report will be forthcoming at an early date as the result of the publication of the Report. Before considering legislation, I must, of course, consider those views, and I may add that there are some other matters relating to water supplies on which legislation may be required and which the advisory committee is now proceeding to consider.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that is likely to take the form of legislation / Will it be next year or the year after?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not like to., commit myself as to the precise year, but I do not think it will be this year.

SMALLPDX (VACCINATION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can inform the House as to the number of children in this country who are unprotected by vaccination against smallpox; what is the percentage of babies in respect of whom certificates of exemption were granted last year; and what steps he is taking to protect the country from an extension of the present outbreak of smallpox?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the information asked for in the first two parts of the question is not available, but the figures of exemption for 1922 expressed as a percentage of the total number of children born was 44. 3, while the corresponding figure for children vaccinated was 40'3. As regards the last part of the question, the responsibility for dealing with an outbreak of smallpox rests upon the local authorities and their officers, but the medical officers of my Department are rendering all possible assistance and advice to the authorities of the affected areas.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend recognise how serious a situation has arisen owing to the large number of persons who are now evading vaccination in the ease of their children, and will he consider reimposing the Regulation which was repealed by the party opposite when they were in power?

Captain A. EVANS: What percentage of these objections are medical and conscientious?

Mr. THURTLE: Before the right lion Gentleman replies to that question, will he give an assurance to the House that there is no reason why Kensington should he in a panic over this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question must be put down on the Paper.

Dr. WATTS: 91.
asked the Minister of Health if he will furnish figures showing

—
Number of Births
Number of children vaccinated
Number of children in respect of whom certificates of conscientious objection were received


1921
…
…
…
849,069
324,864
282,157


1991
…
…
…
780,277
314,550
347,511

I have no information as to the number of cases in which proceedings have been taken for the enforcement of the provisions of the Vaccination Acts during the years in question.

As regards the last part of the question, the administration of the Vaccination Acts is in the hands of, the boards of guardians and their vaccination officers.

Lieut. Colonel FREMANTLE: 92.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of cases and deaths from smallpox for the first four months of this and the previous three years; the percentage of infant vaccinations to births in the last recorded period and in the previous corresponding periods since 1897; and whether he proposes to rely on present methods of sanitary administration and of vaccination administration to check the further spread of the disease or to promote, and, if so, in what way, a fuller recourse to protection by vaccination?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
the number of children born, the number vaccinated, the number in respect of whom certificates of conscientious objection have been furnished by the parents during the four years ending 31st December, 1924, and also the number of prosecutions which have been taken in respect of those who have neither been vaccinated or whose parents have not obtained certificates of conscientious objection; and will he take steps to ensure that the Vaccination Acts are properly administered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer.

I am not yet able to give the information asked for in the first part of the question for the years 1923 and 1924. For 1921 and 1922 the figures are as follows:

Lieut. Colonel FREMANTLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an answer in regard to the latter part of the question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very carefully watching the circumstances connected with the increase of small-pox, but at the present time I do nut think it is necessary to issue any fresh Regulations.

Following is the answer.

The following are the figures asked for in the first part of the question:

Period
No. of cases of small-pox
No. of death


First 4 months of 1922
317
1


First 4 months of 1923
692
—


First 4 months of 1924
1, 569
3


First 4 months of 1925
2, 214*
3


* Provisional figure.

The latest year for which the percentage of infant vaccination to births cart at present be given is 1922. The
figures for that and previous 'years were given in my reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Stratford on the 9th April.

As regards the last part of the. question, I am carefully watching the course of the present outbreak of small-pox, but as at present advised I do not consider it at this time necessary or expedient to modify the existing administrative arrangements for dealing with small-pox.

TREVETHIN COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. B. PETO: asked the Minister of Health whether the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Trevethin is accepted in principle by the Ministry of Health; and whether it is proposed to take any action to carry oat the recommendations of the Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The principal recommendations in the Report of this Committee have been accepted by my Department, and action is being taken to give effect to them. As regards the recommendation in paragraph 14 of the Report, I may say that I am still in correspondence on this matter with the two societies interested in the combating and prevention of venereal disease.

Mr. PETO: In the event of an agreement being reached between the two societies referred to, is there any prospect of legislation being introduced to give effect to that recommendation during the present Session of Parliament.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of agreement between the two societies. I may say, however, that I have been in correspondence with them as to what method is practicable to carry out the wishes they have expressed to the Committee.

RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Commander BELLAIRS: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any representations from the building unions or any other unions concerning the imports of large quantities of Russian timber which have been cut by compulsory sweated labour and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the representations, and the action which the Government intends to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such representations have been received by my Department. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Minister not consider that the words which have been introduced into this question rather beg the question?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the original answer℄

Mr. SPEAKER: There cannot be anything arising out of nothing.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representation about sweated labour on home timber?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question must be put down on the Paper.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 84
asked the Minister of Health whether, before the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill is taken, he will give instructions for the issue of a White Paper explanatory of the contents?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The main principles of the Bill are the same as those contained in the Draft Bill, which, as my hon. Friend is aware, was circulated in the Autumn of 1923 and has been subjected to detailed examination by local authorities and other interests concerned. In the circumstances I do no think that the issue of a White Paper at this stage is necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Would it be possible to get copies of that Memorandum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by Memorandum.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I mean the White Paper.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a White Paper, but a Draft Bill.

INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX (REVENUE PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. DALTON: 97.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of cases, since 1st January, 1919, in which criminal proceedings have been taken, at the in-
stance of the Board of Inland Revenue, against persons charged with making false statements in connection with Income Tax and Super-tax returns, and in how many such cases convictions have been obtained; and what is the total sum which has been recovered for the Treasury as the result of such proceedings?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Such proceedings have been taken in 31 cases. In all the cases except two, in which the circumstances were very exceptional, convictions were obtained, and generally terms of imprisonment were imposed. No question arises of recovering taxes by means of such proceedings.

Mr. DALTON: 98.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of cases since 1st January, 1919, in which, although criminal proceedings have not been taken, the Board of Inland Revenue has taken steps to inspect traders' books of account, with a view to correcting false statements made by ratepayers in connection with their Income Tax and Supertax returns; in how many such cases corrections have been made; and what is the total sum which has been recovered by the Treasury as the result of such corrections?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This information is rot available.

Mr. DALTON: Would it not be possible to obtain the information, in view of the evidence which has come to light of the tendency to dodge taxation in certain sections of the community?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that it would not. There is an immense variety of circumstances in which the actual books of account of the trader may be furnished in support of the copies of accounts given to the revenue authorities, and from the nature of the investigations it is impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line such as the hon. Member's question suggests between cases involving deliberate evasion and those of mere negligence or mistake, or those in which the taxpayer of his own initiative produces his books. Exhaustive inquiries of all the tax districts in the country would be necessary in order to ascertain the number of cases in which traders' books have been produced to the Inland Revenue authorities. These inquiries could not be undertaken without seriously disturbing
the current work of the inspectors, and would certainly involve a quite disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

OFFICIAL REPORT (DAILY INDEX).

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 108.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether arrangements can be made for the Official Reports of the Parliamentary Debates to be indexed daily and for the index to be available to Members in the Library, so as to make the information in the Reports more readily accessible and to prevent the repetition of questions which have already been answered?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I understand that it was formerly the practice to keep a weekly index of questions in manuscript in the Library, and I will make inquiries as to whether arrangements can be made again on these lines.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to ask the House to sit to-day until all the Budget Resolutions are passed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I certainly hope it may be practicable to secure all the Resolutions.

Mr. MacDONALD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is most inconvenient and improper to discuss such important subjects as the duty on silk in the middle of the night, followed by the Income Tax very early in the morning—probably about six o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that more than a day and a half has been given to the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions for a very long time. If it were the desire of the House, it would be perfectly possible to take the Silk Duty at an early stage to-night.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been no Budget in recent years which has contained such immensely controversial matters?

The PRIME MINISTER: Whatever controversy there may be, I think it is largely owing to the action of the right
hon. Gentleman who asked me the question, and I think also that the controversy is very much more marked in this Chamber than in the country.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Silk Duties do not affect only what is known as the silk industry, but every textile industry in the country, and a number of others as well; and is he also aware that, in every part of the country that is interested in the making of textiles in any shape or form, people are anxious to know what the views of the Government are, and what is the justification for the imposition of these new duties in their present form?

The PRIME MINISTER: That seems to me to be an adequate reason for discussing the Resolutions at the earliest possible moment, in order that the trades affected may have the advantage of an announcement by the Chancellor of Exchequer.

Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that several hours will be consumed in dividing upon the Amendments, apart altogether from the Debate in the Chamber—two or three hours in dividing on the Amendments?

The PRIME MINISTER: That must largely rest with the hon. and gallant Member's friends.

Mr. MacDONALD: Arising out of that, and anticipating the announcement which I shall ask for in a minute about next week's business, would it not be possible, supposing we could come to an arrangement to put two days of next week's business into one or a fraction over, arranging three days' business for two days next week and so giving us an extra day, say next Monday—which is the last day, I understand—in order that we may have a proper and public discussion on these important subjects?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am always prepared to consider arrangements if they are practicable, and if consultation takes place through the usual channels. If he asks me, as I think he did implicitly to give the business for next week, perhaps I had better do so.
On Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill.
On Tuesday we shall take the Report stage and Third Reading of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill. I very much hope it may be possible, having regard to the discussion that has taken place on that Bill, for us to get also the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, which is a Bill very much overdue, and one which I think the House generally would like to get to a Committee.
On Wednesday, we shall- take the Second Reading of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, and, if time permits, other Orders on the Paper. At a quarter past eight there is a Private Member's Motion.
On Thursday, the business will be Committee of Supply—Ministry of Labour Vote.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I repeat my question now? Supposing that it is possible to come to an arrangement by which this business could be got through next week, giving in addition one day— which, of course, must be Monday—to discuss the Budget Resolutions, would the Government have any objection to coming to that arrangement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would much rather that that should be discussed when there is time to discuss it, but I am perfectly open to an arrangement, if such an arrangement is possible, by which we do not lose any of the Orders I have mentioned.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Before we finally pass from the subject—and we are all interested on this side of the House—taking the business for next week, would it not be better for the Criminal Justice Bill, which has been well discussed, to go through in the small hours of the morning, rather than smuggling through this Silk Tax at I do not know what hour to-morrow morning?

Captain BENN: May I ask the Prime Minister exactly where do we stand? Does he mean to say he will be in a, position, shortly after the usual consultation, to make an announcement as to whether we are to sit all night or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: Should any agreement be come to I shall, of course, at once make an announcement.

Orderd,
 That the proceedings upon the Reports of Ways and Means of 28th April last and 30th April last have precedence this day of the Business of Supply. "—[The Prime Minister.]

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 171.].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to, —

Charitable Trusts Bill,

British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Administration of Justice Bill[Lords], without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Merchant Shipping (Equivalent Provisions) Bill[Lords]):Mr. Albert
Alexander and Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Stamford and Mr. Fenby.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir Henry Jackson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hurd.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [28TH APRIL].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [6th May] proposed on Consideration of Third Resolution.

NEW IMPORT DUTIES.

3. "That the new import duties which were imposed by Part I of the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1915 shall be revived and shall be charged on and after she first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, and for the purpose of the charge of duty on cinematograph films the expressions 'positives' and 'negatives' in Section twelve of the said Act shall be deemed respectively to include undeveloped positives and undeveloped negatives."

Which Amendment was: In line 1, after the word "duties," to insert the words.
 other than the duty on motor cars, in-chiding motor bicycles and motor tricycles. "—[Mr Pethick-Lawrence].

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted. ".

Mr. HARRIS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member spoke yesterday. He is not allowed to speak again to-day.

Mr. HARRIS: I was speaking when I was interrupted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer moving the Adjournment, and I gave way.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member sat down, and then the Adjournment was moved.

Commander BELLAIRS: Nearly all the speeches which were addressed to us yesterday from the Liberal Benches were in the nature of a warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to beware of the company he keeps on this side of the House. I do not wonder at it, because hon. Members opposite have every reason to be beware, considering that the Leader of the Liberal party has been tarred with the brush of Protection when a Member of the Coalition Government, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who was, I believe, Treasurer of the Free Trade League, has given us a most clear lead in regard to Protection. He has told us
that Protection is justified for key industries, and is justified against dumping and against depressed exchanges. He also told us that the foreign trade depends entirely on more or less of a monopoly of the home market. On all these accounts I say that these McKenna Duties are justified. Take the motor trade. It proved itself to be a key industry in the War. It is certainly a victim of dumping on occasions. If we take the one part of the motor trade which was exempt, and which I consider ought to be subjected to the McKenna Duties—commercial cars—they were the complete victim of dumping in 1920, when no fewer than 16, 250 commercial cars were dumped into the country.

Lieu.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think it is very necessary to get this matter clear. What exactly does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by these commercial vehicles being dumped? Were they sold under cost of manufacture, or what does he mean?

Commander BELLAIRS: I mean simply and solely this, that in 1920 an abnormal number of commercial cars were dumped from America and from Germany. Those 16, 250 cars that came into the country were over 11, 000 more than the whole British product, whereas in all normal years the British product exceeded the imported product. When Liberals contend that the year of greatest employment corresponds with the year of great foreign import they are stating what is absolutely true. That is because in the final year -of the boom, rather than spoil their own market, places like United States and Germany dump their goods into the one Free Trade market. So in the year 1920 we had this abnormal number of commercial cars, and the result was that in 1922 we had three-quarters of the men employed in the output of commercial cars sent into unemployment. It was simply and solely through this great dumping of commercial cars from the United States and Germany, in particular, that this arose. We have depressed exchanges now more than ever was the case when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen made his speeches and issued that pamphlet, "The Popular View," in which he used all these Protectionist arguments. Take his final test, the
home trade amounts to three-fourths of the total trade. If we lose that, we lose the foreign trade. It is by virtue of his grip on his home trade that American exports are going up by leaps and hounds. The American exports in 1923 were twice the exports in 1913, four times the exports in 1903, and 10 times the exports in 1893. With our Free Trade system, without the assistance. Of duties such as this our export trade is not going up except by means of Empire trade., We have a case where the home trade is comparatively small, the lace trade of Nottingham, where the fact that three-quarters of the trade is foreign trade, and there we find that a Committee has reported in favour of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. [Interruption.] It has. I have read the Report to-day
4. 0 P. M
We know that we got £7, 500, 000 in three years from these McKenna Duties. Thatwent in relief of taxation and brought prosperity to these trades, because they were in full employment and were expanding, and the Government in addition got increased Income Tax and Super tax. All these things went in relief oftaxation on other trades. If you had this taxation on the other trades, you would have had increased prices, because there is nothing more certain than that whereas duties on foreign imports do not always lead to increased prices—in the case of the motor taxes and gramophones they led to decreased prices—direct taxes invariably lead to increased prices, because a manufacturer must put his overhead charges into the price of his goods. The McKenna Duties were taken off in 1924 and an increase in imports took place immediately. The imports under the McKenna. Duties in September, 1923, amounted to £320, 268. In September, 1924, there had been an increase of £489, 854, so that the amount had gone up 2½ times. The result, of course, must have meant employment abroad and unemployment at home. I know that the Liberal argument is that these goods are paid for by other goods, but they never tell us what is the nature of the other goods which pay for them. If they were to address them selves to that question, they would find that the foreign countries send us those goods upon which the maximum of skilled labour is expended, whereas we
are sending more and more of those goods on which there is not the maximum of skilled labour required. I only hope that in the process of discusing this Budget we shall, if possible, extend the duties, and it is because they will be of use to us when we come to fight the 1929 Election that I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put them into his 1925 Budget.

Mr, TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellaire), who has just addressed the House, has been deploring the number of imported commercial bodies, and has asked why they were dumped here. Surely they were not dumped here as a gift, but were sent because there was a demand for these vehicles by our transport contractors in order that they might get them at a cheap price and be able to carry the goods of other trades on a more favourable basis. It is rather significant, if we turn up the figures for the last 20 years, that we find that whenever there has been a decline in the imports of manufactured goods it has been accompanied by an increase in the number of unemployed in this country, showing conclusively that imports of manufactured goods are paid for by exports of other manufactured goods. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that there was a fallacy in the Free Trade argument, in that while we brought in manufactured goods on which considerable labour was expended we exported raw materials or manufactured goods on which less labour had been expended. Surely, that is contrary to the knowledge and experience of anyone in trade. In the iron and steel trade, for instance, we know that we import semi-manufactured material at a comparatively low figure, spend a large amount of labour on them, and then export the same material at an enhanced price, having found employment for a large number of our people here. I submit, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member's contention that the import of goods means more unemployment is not borne out either by the practice of the trade or by the figures which are supplied to us each year.
The question we have to consider is whether these protective duties are to be imposed without a protest. This is the first time for 100 years that we have had
a protective Budget such as the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. If these new import duties which he is imposing were merely for revenue purposes, why does he not put on a corresponding excise duty? Surely, other trades, like the silk trade, for instance, have a right to inquire why they should be subject to an excise duty set against an import duty when the other new import duties do not carry corresponding excise duties. The real question is not the respective interest of this or that particular trade, but the interest of the consumers and the public generally. Whatever may be the immediate effect on any individual trade, there is no question that these import duties mean increased prices for the purchasers in this country. If not, what is the object of putting on these duties? It is surely a protective purpose, in order to raise the cost of these goods in this country. Take, for instance, the motor car. I suppose the number of licences taken out for cars is considerably greater than at any previous time. That means that since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) repealed the duties last year, and the fall in price consequently took place, large numbers of people have been encouraged to buy and to run cars which they never had before. Small people of moderate means have made these purchases under the expectation that the duties would be kept off. Now, having involved themselves in the expense of running one of these cheaper cars, they find that the duties are put on again. That means that all the accessories and all the renewals which they will require during the running of these cars will he at an enhanced price. They will therefore find themselves very seriously mulcted in extra running costs and in increased costs for repairs. I submit that it is contrary to the interest of the great body of consumers and users of cars that these higher prices should be put on.
What is the justification? There is no unemployment in the particular trades concerned. Figures have already been given to show how the manufacture of motor cars has increased since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley removed the duties. The export figures show most encouraging returns. Whereas in the first quarter of 1923 the
export of cars and parts amounted to £804, 000, last year it was £1, 248, 000, and this year it is £2, 280, 000, showing a very considerable increase since the time that the duties were taken off, and bearing out entirely the Free Trade contention that if you only reduce the price of goods you will increase the sales and, consequently, the production and employment. What is true of motor cars is also true of motor cycles. Our export trade in motor cycles has increased very considerably. The British production in 1924 was 134, 000 as against 95, 000 in 1923. In the same way, the export of parts has increased from £421, 000 to £738, 000 last year. So you can go on to show in all these cases how an increase of trade and a corresponding increase of employment have been the result of the removal of these duties. We, therefore, say that it is the heighth of folly, where trade is booming, that we should take this reactionary measure of putting on duties which will restrict and hinder instead of help trade. The Birmingham Post, which is an authority which will be treated with respect on the benches opposite, in an article of the 5th March, said:
 Activity(in the motor industry is still maintained. The buoyancy which, marked the Coventry motor and industry since the early days of the opening season continues. The demand so far is most satisfactory; machinery is running day and night, while unemployment is substantially less than at the corresponding period last year. 
Could there. possibly be a more striking demonstration of the sanity and soundness of the Free Trade policy than that quotation which I have given from the Birmingham Post? If you turn to musical instruments, or to any of the other articles which are covered by these duties. you find exactly the same tale. The exports of musical instruments have increased from £1, 180, 000 in 1923, to £1, 659, 000 in 1924. Therefore, there is complete justification for the Free Trade argument as to the statutory effect of the freeing of commerce from these restrictive duties, and I hope that a protest will be made in this House against going back to the old days of Protection. If you begin with one trade, you cannot refuse to others that which you give to a special industry. Why should one particular section of the community be advantaged at the expense of the rest? I would like
in conclusion, to repeat the protest that was made from these benches yesterday as to how far the Prime Minister is maintaining the promise which he made to the House in December last year. In the Debate which arose then on the Amendment moved from these benches on the fiscal question, he said:
 We have no mandate for Protection, and we have never asked for it
Later on, he goes on to say:
 So far as the protection of any industry goes in tint. Parliament, the only avenue open to them is the avenue through the new Safeguarding of Industries Act. "—OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1924; cols. 1063-1. Vol. 179.]
Why, in face of that definite pledge and that most explicit statement, are these new protective duties put on in the Budget, and why are they not taken through the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries Act? We submit that the Prime Minister ought to be called upon to show reason why he has not kept faith with the statement which he made to the House as late as December last. Is the answer to be found in the fact that the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries Act would not enable these duties to be put on? They would have to prove that the industry is suffering from unfair competition. It cannot be shown from the figures that I have just quoted that any of these industries are suffering from unfair competition. It is rather the reverse. They have been stimulated by competition from abroad to greater activity, and consequently they are enjoying a prosperity which they had not under the protective duties. I submit therefore that it is unfair for the Prime Minister to have overlooked, shall I say, the definite pledge which he made to the House in December last that, so far as the protection of any industry goes in this Parliament, the only avenue open to them was the avenue of the new Safeguarding of Industries Act. This Budget, with its protective duties, is a breach of that understanding, and I think Re have the right to call upon the Prime Minister for an explanation why he has varied his judgment and action in this matter.

Mr. E. A. RADFORD: I am not a wholehearted supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of all the items in his Budget, and therefore I rise with all the more pleasure to tell
him how entirely I am in favour of the re-imposition of the so-called "McKenna Duties. "There has been a suggestion—almost an accusation—of a breach of faith in our party in bringing in these duties. We back benchers can only speak for ourselves, but I can tell the House that I never had a meeting in my constituency at which I did not attack in unmeasured terms the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) for having removed these duties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be hurt if I say that I referred to him many times as a doctrinaire Free Trader. I was asked why he had removed these duties if their removal was so harmful as I suggested, and I replied that it was because he was a "doctrinaire Free Trader. "The question of the title of these duties has been raised, and an objection has been made to calling them the "McKenna Duties. "One hon. Member has suggested that they might be called the Churchill Duties. I am sure that all the Members of the House are aware of the extremely retiring and modest disposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think he might make a concession to the wishes of hon. Members opposite, and allow his name to be coupled with that of Mr. McKenna in the title of these duties. I am only sorry that the name of the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley cannot be inserted between them, so that these duties might be carried down to posterity as being of a non-party nature.
The opposition to these duties comes from both parties opposite, but the right hon. Member for Colne Valley is undoubtedly the high priest and leader of the Opposition. He towers above the other hon. Members who oppose the duties, as the mountain which is honored by bearing his name in North Wales towers above the surrounding hills. The question has been asked why were these Duties ever removed by the right hon. Gentleman. I think I can, with due modesty, give an answer. Certain hon. Members who are present to day were not privileged to attend the momentous meeting of the Ancient Society of Pedantic Free Traders, which was held to consider the special report issued in regard to the McKenna Duties, and how they were working. The opening of the proceedings was
hardly harmonious, because although, in a most unselfish spirit, a Socialist Member moved that a certain Liberal take the chair, another hon. and gallant Liberal objected to that particular Liberal being the chairman
The report of the Special Committee was submitted, and the chairman, in submitting it, apologised for calling the meeting at such short notice, but said that the matter was of imperative importance, and required immediate action. The report stated that since the McKenna Duties were imposed, employment in the motor and other trades affected had been greatly enhanced, that no price rings had been formed by the manufacturers, that the retail price of the articles concerned had gone down to the consumer, that outputs were going up, and that the country was very well satisfied with the result of the duties. In addition to these terrible conditions, the Revenue had benefited to the extent of something like £3, 000, 000 per annum. In view of these lamentable facts, it was absolutely essential that the McKenna Duties should be removed at the earliest possible moment, or the sacred cause of Free Trade would have received its death blow. Accordingly, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley at the earliest opportunity removed the duties
For a gentleman of his magnificent mental attainment to have taken such an action would have been inexplicable but for the fact of the harm that. the duties were doing to the cause so dear to the heart of the Free Trader. In removing the duties, he allowed his heart to rule his head. I think it was Queen Mary who said that when she was dead they would find the word "Calais" engraved on her heart. If the right hon. Member for Colne Valley carried his heart on his sleeve, we should see the words Free Imports imprinted thereon. He must have acted against his better judgment in removing the duties. In the springtime, it is permissible for the heart to rule the head, but judging, from what I heard him say in December, when these duties were being discussed, "he hates them in December as he does in May"
I cannot understand why hon. and right hon. Members opposite take such an objection to these duties. In addition to raising revenue, they afford a certain amount of Protection to our manufac-
turers and employment to our work-people. The opponents of the duties seem to think that to impose them for the purpose of raising revenue is justifiable, but if at the same time, without increasing the price to the consumer in this country, there is the additional advantage of employment, they oppose the duties.

Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member who has just sat down, and who has such a high opinion of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), surprises me. The simple reason why the right hon. Gentleman removed the duties has not occurred to him. For anyone standing on such a pinnacle, surely it is natural for him to follow out the principles he professes; but that does not seem to have occurred to the hon. Member. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman is a pronounced Free Trader, what is there more natural than that, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should adhere to that policy and fulfil the pledges he had made to his constituents? Surely that is a very simple explanation
If we were going to have Protection introduced, the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) would have been appropriate, and we should have recognised that he was presenting the case for Protection; but I do not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is professing to introduce Protection with the McKenna Duties. We are given to understand that Protection for the time being is on the shelf, a point which the hon. Member who last spoke seems to have forgotten. The Conservative party, although they profess to be supporters of Protection, have agreed, I understand. that for the time being that it shall not be put into force, with certain exceptions. That is why we have heard no argument why, If Protection was to be introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer selected the McKenna Duties. No one would accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being inclined to follow the lead of any man, or being tied by any party or by anything that has been done by his predecessor in office. Therefore, I do not understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply adopted the McKenna Duties, except for the very simple explanation that hon. Members opposite were so committed to the McKenna Duties, and welcomed their reimposition
so heartily that he did not take the trouble of inquiring whether these were the best Duties that could be imposed.
When Mr. McKenna originally made these proposals, the idea was to prevent the entry into this country of certain articles which were largely looked upon as articles of luxury, and which in time of war it was not the desire of the Government that the people should buy. If it was the idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax luxuries, why did he not tax other things? He might have adopted the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) yesterday, who pointed out certain articles of luxury that were being imported. Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer adhere so closely to the McKenna Duties? Take the question of watches. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone seems to suggest that all will be well in this respect if the McKenna Duties are imposed. The entry of cheap watches into this country has meant a considerable re-export trade. In 1913 these cheap watches which come into this country were being re-exported to the extent of 700, 000. That provided a certain amount of work for those connected with the trade. Ten years afterwards, when the MeKenna, Duties had been in operation, that re-export trade in cheap watches had almost, been wiped out by the duties
In introducing duties of this kind, we want to remember that they will have an influence on other sections of trade. If you take one trade and simply protect it, and you look at it only from the point of view of the results in that particular trade, the effect is almost certain to be beneficial. Take the case of the motor industry. It is proposed to give Protection to the motor industry, but at the same time you are not protecting the necessities of life, and you are going to allow employers, inevitably, to insist on lower wages, because they will say that in regard to food, clothing, and so forth the men in the trade are getting the benefit of Free Trade. On the other hand, the employers are to have the benefit for their manufactures of the protective duties. You pick out a few trades, and you impose these duties for the benefit of those particular trades, while on the other hand the men employed in those trades have the benefits arising from Free Trade in
connection with food and so on. That is neither Protection nor Free Trade. It is neither one thing nor the other
The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the wonderful prosperity of the motor industry under the McKenna Duties, but he did not tell us of the prosperity of the motor trade since the McKenna Duties were removed. I find from figures published in an imparital journal, the "Economist, "that the production of motor cars in Great Britain in 1922, when the McKenna Duties were in existence, was 40, 000. In 1923, the number was 67, 000, and last year, in spite of the removal of these duties, the number had increased from 40, 000 to 107, 000.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Can the hon. Member give the comparative figures for the United States?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid I have not those figures. The value of these motor cars rose from £20, 000, 000 in 1922 to £35, 000, 000 in 1924. Meanwhile, the average cost to those who were going to buy them fell from £500 to £341. The Economist said that the net profit of motor companies, according to their reports for the first quarter of this year. were over 40 per cent. higher than those of a year ago. I suggest that these figures quoted in the Economist should he considered. We know perfectly well that many of the difficulties of the motor companies, which were pointed out a year ago, are not so much connected with trade but with the finance of the companies. A large number of the companies are suffering from watered capital to a great extent. Much of the financial difficulties of these motor companies was due not to the McKenna Duties, but to the finance of the companies. These instances show that the abolition of the McKenna Duties has not had the disastrous effect that was suggested. Hon. Members opposite have to concede the point that the abolition of these duties a year ago has not had a disastrous effect upon the motor industry. This industry is going on excellently at the present time
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to impose duties on luxuries, why did he not impose them on such articles of luxury as furs or jewellery? I can only imagine that it is in strict adherence to some pledge given, perhaps at some
secret political meeting. The hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), who told us of a secret Free Trade meeting, must remember that secret political gatherings where pledges are given and promises made are held in connection with other parties. Possibly the explanation of the re-imposition of the McKenna Duties is to be found in some secret gathering of the Tory party in some part of London, and that is the simple explanation why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is usually so original, has not favoured us with any originality in re-imposing the McKenna Duties.
One of the items affected by the McKenna Duties is the manufacture of pianos. It seems a little strange that just after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced the imposition of the McKenna Duties, the manufacturers of pianos were so unimpressed by the prosperity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to bring to them that they suggested to the workpeople that it was time they should have a reduction in wages. If there is going to be a new era of prosperity for these trades which are subject to the McKenna Duties this seems hardly the right time for the employers to be suggesting a reduction in wages. It seems to me that you can have Protection and you can have Free Trade. You may put on taxes to prevent articles of luxury coming into the country, but to put them on certain selected trades, selected by accident, and to propose for them special protection for no reason except that Mr. McKenna suggested that they should be protected about eight or nine years ago, seems to me to be absurd and impracticable and for that reason I shall oppose these duties.

Sir ROBERT BIRD: The Chancellor in his Budget statement gave the reasons which guided the House in 1915 in the imposition of the McKenna Duties, and stated that those reasons still exist. Though the reasons which guided the House during the War in imposing these duties are, perhaps, still unchanged, it certainly can be said that circumstances have changed materially, and in respect of commercial motor vehicles they have changed entirely. I venture to bring to the notice of the House the very unfair
effect which the application of the McKenna Duties only to what may be termed pleasure motor vehicles will have as regards commercial motor vehicles. When the duties were imposed originally by Mr. McKenna, commercial motor vehicles were specially exempt, because the manufacturers were exclusively diverting their factories and plants to the production of munitions, and when the necessity for those munitions passed away the manufacturers had to re-establish what already was a perhaps tender and uncertain industry in the face not only of vigorous foreign competition, but also of an enormous accumulated stock of motor vehicles reconditioned which had been employed during the War. In their efforts they had not the shelter of the McKenna. Duties.
The Chancellor has told us that, from whatever point of view the McKenna Duties may he regarded, from his point of view he regards them solely as a means of producing revenue. In the collection of that revenue it is incidental that there is a certain measure of Protection, and it does seem to me extremely unfair that one class of motor vehicles should enjoy the shelter of Protection, and another class of motor vehicle, which has suffered nothing but adverse conditions since the War, should continue to he penalised by foreign competition. I would appeal to the Chancellor to include commercial motor vehicles within the scope of the McKenna Duties, on the ground not of shelter or protection —though we are quite willing to accept that incidentally —but purely on the ground of revenue. I understand from authoritative figures which have been supplied to me that the duty which it can reasonably be estimated will be paid upon imports of motor vehicles would represent, if commercial vehicles were within the scope of the McKenna Duties, an increase of between 40 and 50 per cent. upon the estimated yield from pleasure vehicles. Both manufacturers and users of luxurious limousines have always regarded the commercial vehicle as the ugly duckling of the industry, and because perhaps of its lack of beauty it has certainly met with very unfair treatment. I would ask the House to support me in my request to the Chancellor to reconsider his attitude and do something to include commercial motor vehicles within the scope of these duties.
The inclusion of commercial motor vehicles will have the tendency to make the gross yield which he anticipates from pleasure vehicles a net yield, for this reason. In the application of the McKenna Duties there has had to be for Customs purposes a complicated system of supervision and inspection to ensure that exempted vehicles shall not escape through transformation, or owing to various technical reasons, the operation of the duty. The occasion for that arises because of the fact that commercial vehicles and pleasure vehicles are now constructed from the same component parts. Consequently, when an importation of motor parts takes place—and 1 believe that in a modern car the parts number about 2, 000—those have to be most carefully traced by the Customs. The result is that in the works or stores of companies which construct both commercial and pleasure vehicles you have two sets of identical parts lying side by side, one of which is duty free, for the construction of commercial vehicles, while the other is duty paid for pleasure vehicles.
I am told that manufacturers were compelled when the duties were still in operation to maintain a special staff in connection with supervision and equally the Customs had their own whole-time staff in some of the larger works. But that is not all. When the vehicles had been constructed periodical inspection is necessary, for the purpose of ensuring that a vehicle which has been constructed as a duty. free vehicle for commercial purposes is not transformed into a pleasure vehicle, thereby becoming liable for the payment of the McKenna Duties On those grounds I think that the House will be disposed to agree with me that not only by the inclusion of commercial vehicles within the scope of the McKenna Duties will the revenue be greater but also that the net yield from the ordinary pleasure vehicles will be considerably increased. I make an tamest appeal to the Chancellor to include commercial vehicles within the scope of the McKenna Duties.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I listened, not, indeed, in full agreement but with a great deal of sympathy, to the appeal by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I cannot help feeling
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it very difficult to steel his heart against it, because on what ground can he justify a discrimination between a commercial vehicle and a pleasure vehicle? But I must protest against the implication, which persisted throughout the speech of the hon. Member, that these duties are identical with the McKenna Duties. These are not the McKenna Duties. Neither in character, duration, intention or circumstance do they resemble the duties which Mr. McKenna introduced in different circumstances at the end of 1915. I feel sure that if that distinguished economist and financier were here to adorn our Debates to-day, he would be the first to repudiate the parentage of these new Import Duties which we are now discussing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) yesterday when he was talking about these duties as being duties on luxuries, and he said that Mr. McKenna said that they were luxuries at that time. My hon. and gallant Friend gave a complete answer when he pointed out that what were luxuries in 1916, and were then unnecessary, are no longer luxuries, and that these motor cars, particularly the small light cars so much used in country districts by farmers, which are an essential part of the modern farmer's equipment, can no longer, except by a gross abuse of language, be described at luxuries. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is introducing these duties as new import duties for the purpose of revenue, whereas. Mr. McKenna, when introducing these duties, introduced them not for the purposes of revenue but for the purpose of restricting imports and restraining trade, which's a purpose contrary to that of the right hon. Gentleman.
The, principal characteristics of the McKenna, Duties were, first, that they were imposed with the primary definite and deliberate object of restraining trade, and I submit that that will be the inevitable consequence of the duties now proposed. To use Mr. McKenna's own words, they were proposed to restrict imports and reduce consumption, and it is now proposed to impose duties which will have the effect of reducing consumption and reducing employment in the industries concerned. In the second place,
they were imposed during the War when the economic circumstances were in every Fay abnormal. One great object that was aimed at was to save shipping space. Mr. McKenna said:
We cannot increase out exports. The reduction of imports is an object in itself. 
But the professed object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing these duties is to obtain revenue, and nobody has pointed out more forcibly than the right hon. Gentleman himself that you cannot pursue by the same methods the totally different objects of restricting imports and obtaining revenue. Mr. Bonar Law said that the duties would never be continued in any circumstances when the War was over. And this brings me to my third point, that these duties were always intended to be temporary. Mr. McKenna said that we had to deal with objects which were purely temporary, and again in 1921 he declared that he deeply regretted that the Government had, tot given effect to his promise that the duties on imported luxuries should be imposed for the period of War only. Why was this promise not fulfilled? Because in the Parliament from 1918 to 1922, and in tie Parliament which followed until the end of 1923, there was a majority of members who in their hearts and from honest conviction believed in the doctrines of Protection, and believed that these duties were necessary, and doubly so when the slump came in 1920, when they honestly believed that the renewal of the duties would greatly add to the evil of unemployment in the industries affected.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said yesterday that he felt that the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer was running an unwarranted risk in removing the duties. I confess frankly that I was not unmoved by such considerations myself when this subject was discussed last year. I felt quite certain and convinced that in the long run the effect of removing these duties must be to increase consumption, increase employment and do good to industry, but I felt that, perhaps, at the moment, when there was so much unemployment, it would not be not wise to break the window of the hothouse. On the whole, however, I was convinced that it was wise. I felt also that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had access to information on these questions, and was able to judge the
situation at the moment better than I was. And I felt that even from the purely party point of view, he would not lead his party on to the ice by removing the McKenna Duties unless he was quite certain that it would bear. However, that may be, the fact remains that, since the duties have been removed, the results have proved, not merely a vindication of the right hon. Gentleman, but a far more ample vindication than the right hon. Gentleman himself could possibly have anticipated.
Now the argument for Protection is shattered. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer must throw a sop to his Protectionist supporters. On account of the pledges given by the Prime Minister they are forbidden to attack the citadel of Free Trade, but they attach a kind of sentimental importance to the capture of this little outwork. Yet they cannot attack it under the guise of Protection They are forbidden by the Prime Minister's pledge. So the Chancellor of the Exchequer, characteristically fertile in dialectical expedients, has devised a new argument and exclaims with well simulated indignation that it was a wanton act on the part of his predecessor to deprive the Treasury of this Revenue. Nobody minded the duties. They were being paid quite easily. People hardly knew they were paying them and no one expected relief. As a matter of fact these arguments would have been unsound had they been applied to the Budget of the Labour Government. They were not applied in the Debates of that time. The argument then was on the protection of the motor industry, and arguments as to depriving the Treasury of a certain amount of revenue were not raised. But everyone had a right to expect relief. It had been promised. There was certainly a very strong feeling in the last House of Commons that the duties ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment.
These arguments do apply to one of the taxes in the present Budget; they apply to the Super-tax. There you have a tax which everybody has paid and on which nobody expected relief. I challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find one Super-tax payer who expected to get any relief. Whether or not that argument applied to the McKenna Duties last year, it certainly would apply to the Super-tax in this Budget. I am not questioning the Chancellor's need of addi-
tional revenue, although I can sympathise with the disappointment of those who thought, I suppose, that by some magic he could propose bold schemes of social reform without reducing expenditure and without increasing taxation. Still the taxpayers as a whole, whether rich men with large family estates, with the prospect of having to pay Death Duties, or whether they were users of silk, or whether they were consumers of motor cars and clocks and watches, hoped that as a result of this Budget we should get lower taxes. Now they find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bearing down upon them with a Budget with the strange device "Excelsior" on.
Yet you cannot make omeletes without breaking eggs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced courage ms, constructive and imaginative proposals. His Budget is full of flaws, and, with all respect to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain F. Guest), it is the duty of the Opposition vigilantly and relentlessly to criticise the Budget. Still, it is the nest Budget ever introduced by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Most Chancellors of the Exchequer, if you try to criticise some part of their proposals, and especially the taxation proposals, say: "Ah, but you are spoiling the whole construction of the Budget. You cannot pull out a brick without the whole thing collapsing. "But here we are on velvet, because we can urge the right hon. Gentleman not to reimpose these duties, and, instead, to leave the Super-tax at the level at which it is now. By the reduction of the Super-tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer is losing nearly three times the amount of revenue that he gains by reimposing the McKenna Duties. If he wants revenue, why is there no countervailing Excise? In that way he would get far more revenue. If these industries want Protection—as a matter of fact we know they do not need it—let them justify themselves under the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I, therefore, ask the Chancellor, if he admits that these duties are of a protective character, how is that to be reconciled with the Prime Minister's pledges? Why are these particular industries singled out for these protective duties?
If they are imposed for revenue purposes, why is there no countervailing Excise?
I do not expect any answer to these questions. We are all far too familiar with the Chancellor's methods of controversy. If he cannot answer he coruscates; and when he rises to speak to-night I have no doubt that he will dazzle the House with the scintillations of his wit, and bemuse his supporters with the richness of his rhetoric, and as they stream out into the Lobby they will say, "What a triumph for the Chancellor again ! and the answer will be, "Yes, was not the right hon. Gentleman in fine form to-night?" But when they wake up in the morning, or in two or three days' time, they will have recovered from the spell which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cast over them. They will find that their supporters in their constituencies are still asking the two humble little questions which I have ventured to address to the right hon. Gentleman, and are still resentfully demanding a satisfactory answer, still demanding to have these irritating duties removed from articles of consumption which are of such great importance to farmers and men engaged in industry in many parts of the country.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Having listened to the witty and able speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, I cannot help but regret that he has come down on the wrong side of the fence after all. I remember that when I had the privilege of sitting with him on those benches, I was hopeful that he would see the light in the near future. But, unfortunately, he has succumbed to the charms of the Wee Free section, and has entirely forsaken the National Liberal influence, which certainly held sway at that time. If I correctly understood the arguments of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), he said this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not justified in reimposing these duties because it was not in the interests of the consumer, and he went on to illustrate the fact that the consumer did benefit when these duties were taken off. He forgot to say that if when these taxes were taken of in the early Spring it was not possible to sell a motor ear, it would not be possible to sell one at all. The Association of American Motor Car Importers in this
country thought, "This is not an opportune moment and there is no necessity to sacrifice an additional profit of 333 per cent. We will not pass this on to the consumer. We will wait until the autumn, when it is most difficult to dispose of cars. That is the time to take off this duty and pass it on to the consumer. "But in the autumn the political situation was very unsettled, and it was obvious that a General Election would take place. It did take place, and the Conservative party was returned. That section of the motor industry which is actively engaged in importing foreign cars came to the conclusion that in view of the past pledges and utterances of the Conservative party these duties stood a very good chance of being reintroduced in the first Budget of a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. So, therefore, in fact, this reduction in price was not passed on to the consumer at all.
5. 0 P. M
With the permission of the House, I will give some instances. I have studied this question and have taken six leading makes of American cars. In nine out of ten cases there is a difference in price in this country, over that of the retail price f. o. b. Detroit, of some £200. For instance, there is a car known as the Paige. After examining the price of that car f. o. b. Detroit, and after adding a reasonable sum for freight and insurance to this side of the Atlantic, there still remains the extraordinary profit of £165 over and above the retail profit which is allowed to the agent in the United States of America. Therefore, it is not right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that the consumer directly benefited by this reduction. As a fact he did not benefit at all. What was the real effect of these duties when they were first introduced? We saw an announcement in the Press the other day that '250, 000 Ford cars had been manufactured in this country by skilled English mechanics, with a minimum wage of £3 a week. It was after the duties were instituted that. the Ford companies set up and built a factory at Manchester, of English materials, with English builders and architects. They introduced English machinery, and they employ to-day a staff 97 per cent. of which is of British origin. They have manufactured in this country and sold in this country a quarter of a million Ford cars.
They have paid in revenue to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a vast amount of money which would otherwise have been lost. Surely the late Chancellor of the Exchequer does not mean to tell us that the party which professes more than any other party to protect the interest of the working-class man, considers it is not in the interest of that class that they shall he employed in such vast numbers at a minimum wage of £3 a week. Not only did the company do that, but they also proposed to set up another big factory in the vicinity of Essex, on the banks of the Thames. When this proposal had been carefully considered, they saw with surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) proposed to take off these duties in the near future. They therefore did not expend an amount of money, I think, running into millions of pounds, on the big factory which they were going to set up, but they extended their option in order to see what action the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer would take, and I shall be very surprised indeed if we do not see, after the 1st July, this order proceeded with the utmost. expedition
My hon and gallant Friend, in his most entertaining speech, said that because these duties were originally introduced for the purpose of restricting imports, therefore, although after having been in operation for a considerable number of years, and are bringing in 3, 000, 000 a year revenue, here no justification for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to benefit the taxpayers of this country to that extent. Only yesterday we listened to interesting speeches for a reduction in the Tea Duty. Does the hon. and gallant Baronet say we must sacrifice £3, 000, 000, and also make a reduction in the taxation on tea? I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend, with all his ability, would carry his argument as far as that.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have just suggested adding Excise and increasing revenue.

Captain EVANS: Even so. I doubt whether that would meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point. After all, what is the ultimate effect of the reintroduction of these duties? I think most of
those who read our papers saw that the Vauxhall Motor Company, one of the leading manufacturing motor companies of this country, are in a position immediately to reduce their price, and that would not have been possible if they had realised that in the fall, when it is most difficult to dispose of cars of any nature, the American importers in this country would have reduced their price by 33⅔ per cent. I can give the case of another motor company. At Detroit, free on board, the price is 1, 965 dollars. After adding 200 dollars for freight and insurance to this country, and after allowing for the profit of the retailers in Detroit and other parts of the country, there is still a profit of over £200 on that car. I would like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend where he thinks that £200 goes to? Surely it does not go to the consumers, as many sub-sections of his party tell us.
I do hope most sincerely that my right hon. Friend will not be persuaded by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do hope he will give serious consideration to the suggestion that this tax should be extended to commercial vehicles. After all, personally, as one who is interested in the transport trade of this country, I see no reason why commercial vehicles should be excluded from this duty, if you are going to tax motor cars at all. I must say, that as a user of an American car for a long time—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame "!]—on which 33⅔ per cent. has been paid, and on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has benefited accordingly, I think the English manufacturer has got all his work cut out to compete with the fine American products we get from the United States to-day, and, in my modest judgment, that is all the more reason why he should be protected. It is obvious that unless you manufacture on a large scale, as in the United States of America, unless you instal mass production plant which enables you to turn out motor cars at the rate of thousands a day, it is impossible to compete with those conditions of manufacture. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why"?] Unless you have the same plant in this country as they have in the United States, and the trouble is that the users of the motor car in the United States are far more numerous than in this country. I think I am correctly
stating the fact when I say there are more cars in the State of New York than there are in the whole of Great Britain. So it is obvious that it is very easy for the American manufacturer to send his surplus supply of motor cars over to this country, and dispose of them at a figure very little over cost price, if he so choose; and my argument is that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not brought in these duties, the price of American cars in this country would have been reduced in October or November by something like 40 per cent. —a price at which the manufacturers of this country would have been totally unable to compete.

Mr. SHORT: When the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend is stripped of all fiscal and economic fallacies, nothing remains but the old Protectionist argument, and his speech, and, indeed, other speeches from those benches, are indicative of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to follow particularly if he remains in his present office. He will have to violate, I have no doubt, every pledge he has made during his political career. He will have to swallow all kinds of theories that he has put forward in opposition to all forms of tariff and Protectionist duties, and we shall see him shortly as a full- blown Protectionist. I have, throughout my public career, consistently opposed all forms of tariff and Protectionist duties. I have not adopted that attitude because I believe that the application of Free Trade principles would, in itself, solve or eliminate the gross evils that arise and exist within our industrial system. I have regarded it as essential to the maintenance and promotion of our industrial prosperity, such as it is, and I have always considered that the encouragement and the imposition of tariff walls or protective duties would, in themselves, destroy the possibility of international good will, and create those conditions from which war, strife and discord unfortunately arise, and, of course, make the admirable policy of the League of Nations an impossibility.
I am fortified in my opinion, and in the policy that T have adopted, because of the attitude of the country when the question, in a direct and general sense,
was placed before it, when the people emphatically repudiated anything in the nature of tariffs or protection, and, in my own case, when I had an opponent in 1922, and the same opponent in 1923, who was heralded in the Press as an authority upon this subject, I found that my majority went up by over 10 times—I mean the hon. Member who now sits for Reading, no other, and no less. Therefore, I think we have full justification for challenging, in a most thorough manner, the policy of His Majesty's Government in this particular. It has been suggested that the motor industry is something in the nature of a new industry. There is some measure of truth in that argument, and it was suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird) that the industry had diverted its activities during the period of the War, and, in consequence of that diversion, had not been afforded the opportunity of developing its resources, and making that fascinating appeal which the industry does make to the fancy and tastes of the people. In consequence, it is suggested that it was entitled to some measure of State assistance. It is not the only industry that turned its attention to the support of the War in the sense of the production of munitions, not the only industry that, on the cessation of hostilities, was compelled to re-organise its resources for the purpose of facing and supplying the needs of peace.
I recall that, in this connection, a committee sitting under the auspices of the then existing Ministry of Reconstruction, did make some recommendation that the industry should receive some assistance for some short period of time, on the conclusion of peace. I think the period was in the neighbourhood of three years. Well, these duties were imposed in 1915. They were continued for a period of five and a-half years after the conclusion of hostilities, and, in my judgment, ample opportunities and facilities existed for the trade to re-organise its resources, and to place itself upon an efficient basis. Their troubles have been largely financial, and not industrial, and many of their difficulties have been brought about by their own folly, and their own struggles for supremacy, to cut one another out of the market. By lack of efficiency, or ineptitude, if that word be preferred.
This industry, in my judgment, was never an infant industry as such which warranted the imposition of duties of this character. The industry had not to procure, develop and train skilled labour. It was in a highly developed industrial country. It had not to train and develop a technical staff. The staff was already here, trained in what is possibly the most highly developed industrial country in the world, and while those arguments might be applicable to a less industrialised community than ours, there is no justification for assuming in this case that the industry was in the infant stage.
In fact, at the moment of the abolition of these duties, the industry, from a commercial point of view, was firmly established and capable of meeting all forms of competitions. Though I am not unmindful of the difficulty associated with the finance of the companies, the conditions, in my judgment, when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer repealed these duties were most favourable in every respect so far as the industry was concerned. We know that any industry which once receives State support will constantly renew its claims for State support in one form or another, and will always contend that it has never passed out of the infant stage. The attitude of the great captains of industry in so many quarters to-day, and the constant demands which they make for State assistance in the form either of protective duties or of subsidies, is but one more sign of the failure of the industrial and economic system under which we live to-day. The system should be able to stand on its own legs and develop its own business if it is to justify itself in the opinion of the country.
I call attention to one feature of these duties. One of the most impressive features in connection with the repeal of the duties was the raging, rampant campaign of foul abuse, lies and misrepresentation in connection with this particular industry. I should think no man in public life ever suffered more from abuse than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) did in connection with the policy enunciated in his Budget. All kinds of stories were circulated as to what was to happen, and one eminent producer of motor cars—who seems to have been so
successful that he has been able to purchase a great company and factory in France—foreshadowed one million unemployed. A director of Wolseys Motors said the number of unemployed would be increased by five figures, and disaster in every quarter was foreshadowed. What has been the history of the matter? Since the repeal of these duties, instead of an increase of unemployment in the industry, there has been an increase of employment. I recall a speech made by the Mayor of Coventry—I think it was in November, 1924, after the repeal of the duties—in which he indicated that the employment exchanges of Coventry were unable to supply the labour which was called for, and they were sending abroad to their neighbours for labour and working night shifts. I also recall that that eminent newspaper the "Daily Express" sent an industrial commissioner about the country to interview captains of industry, and one of the interviews was with a director of a company responsible for the production of tools, who said orders were never more numerous and the call upon the resources of the industry was never so great, largely because of the increased supply to the motor industry.
In every direction since my right hon. Friend took off the duties, the motor trade has improved and increased in prosperity. The price of cars, it is true, has gone down, but that is to the advantage of the community, as it enables people of small means to purchase their own cars. If any justification were needed for the repeal of these duties, we should find it in the increasing prosperity of the industry, but what is the justification for their reimposition? I think from the revenue point of view they bring in a little over £3, 000, 000, and, as has been pointed out, we have sacrificed three times that amount of revenue by giving reductions in Super-tax to people who never required and never desired those reductions, though they will be only too happy to take them with open hands from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only see one justification for the reimposition of the duties, and it is that it enables the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to justify what little faith the members of the Tory party have in him. They have not a great deal; there is much doubt and suspicion
in their minds as to what he means to do not merely to-day but to-morrow.

Mr. ERSKINE: How do you know?

Mr. SHORT: Of course I know very well and I think the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) should be the last to talk about what is in the mind of the Conservative party. The doubt which exists in the Tory party exists likewise among the people of the country. We have many examples in justification of our lack of faith in the right hon. Gentleman's political capers and political policies. It seems to me the right hon. Gentleman felt that if he wanted to maintain his position in that party and upon the Treasury Bench, he must introduce something in the nature of protective duties or the reimposition of duties, as an acknowledgment for the time being at any rate—I will say no more—of his loyalty to the Tory party. I am satisfied in my own mind. [Laughter.] I am entitled to be satisfied in my own mind. I am entitled to satisfy my personal judgment in these matters because I have to defend my views to my constituents possibly more frequently than many hon. Members opposite, who only visit their constituencies once in 12 months. I do so with greater frequency. I am satisfied, having regard to all the facts, and bearing in mind the attitude of the country towards this question, that when the opportunity arrives there will be an overwhelming manifestation of opposition to the re-imposition of these duties or to anything like their extension.

Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to be very sure that he knows his own mind. He also seems very sure that he knows the minds of others, but I would remind him of a little couplet:—
He prays best, who leaves unguessed, The secrets in another's breast. 
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give sound reasons for the proposals he is making. When the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Major Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the Chancellor's replies as consisting not of logic but rather of wit and rhetoric, he reminded me of our Lancashire saying:
Kettle co'in th'pon brunt,
which being translated means:
The kettle calling the pan black.
I think after his brilliant speech there is some truth in that remark. Hon. Members above the Gangway and behind me ask why the McKenna Duties are being re-imposed. We might very fairly ask, why were they taken off? To those who say we have no mandate for reimposing them, I reply that the Labour party had no mandate for taking them off. The last General Election but one was not fought on the question of whether or not we should do away with the amount of Protection which then existed. It was fought on the question of whether or not that Protection should be extended, because in the view of the then Prime Minister the extension of that principle was the only solution for the unemployment problem. He is perfectly logical now in putting us back in exactly the same place as we were in before. I would ask the Chancellor to consider sympathetically the appeal made by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird) with regard to extending this duty to commercial cars. It is no good arguing that this will decrease employment. With regard to commercial vehicles there is no doubt that even if we lose the possibility of buying these cars abroad, the workshops of this country could produce all that are required. In addition I should like the Chancellor to give attention to the question of tyres. Here I touch on a subject which is very familiar to the House, but the fact that it is familiar is no reason why it should not be brought forward. An injustice created in 1920 or 1921 does not become any less because it is allowed to continue until 1925 or 1926. Hon. Members on the Liberal benches talk a great deal about lobbying by Protectionists and infer that it would be easy for people to influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This great industry has been trying to influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer but all to no purpose. if the same amount of pressure, or log-rolling, or lobbying had been, carried on as was carried on by the Free. Traders in regard to fabric gloves, no doubt a deputation would have been received. Free Traders talk about lobbying as though the Protectionists were the only people who did it. There is more lobbying done by the great Manchester
school, headed by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), in a week than there is by Protectionists in five years.

Captain BENN: Free Traders do not ask for anything out of the pockets of others, but out of their own pockets.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The most that Free Traders ask for is always that they can buy in the cheapest possible market, irrespective of whether or not the people, who otherwise would have made those goods, are unemployed. If you wish to see the character of the Free Trade influence that is going on at present, look at the great outcry going on about artificial silk—with a certain amount of reason, perhaps, but not a great deal—led by their stalwart. They will make their pressure felt, and he would be a wonderful Chancellor who could resist anybody coming from that quarter. If you want to know the type of the resistance to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, take a few railway journeys backwards and forwards to Manchester, and see the character of a great many of the people who are travelling backwards and forwards at the present time. I am not like hon. Members above the Gangway on this side—and I do not want to be—who are so fond of saying that they do not believe in the Free Trade doctrine, but who are always afraid of voting in any way against it. I am a Protectionist, and frankly so. I was a Free Trader, and I said I should be a Free Trader until it could be proved to me that there would be more dislocation of employment by continuing the policy of Free Trade than by establishing the policy of Protection, and it was because I felt that change in my views that I became a Protectionist instead of a Free Trader. [An HON. MEMBER: "In cotton? "] Yes, in cotton, too.
The most important point, to my mind, is the regularity of work for the work-people, and when you talk about a duty making the price greater, you must remember that prophecies do not always come true, especially after that very memorable case that the hon. and gallant Member knows so much about, when it was said the price of these particular commodities would increase. After the duty was put on, it did not increase at all. It was also said, with a great degree
of certainty, that if a duty were put on fabric gloves, the fine spinning cotton industry of Lancashire would be ruined, but there has never been a single spindle stopped because of it, and it is the only section of the cotton trade that has been successful during the last five years. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to take the slightest notice of all these protests from those who are simply doctrinaire Free Traders, and I ask him—and I think it is a reasonable request—to do what the four Chancellors of the Exchequer who have preceded him have refused to do, and that is to say why motor-car tyres—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] You would not cheer if you had lost your money in it. It is very singular how hon. Members are so anxious to see the downfall of those engaged in industry in this country, so that they can say, "I told you so." That is the top and bottom of it. They do not care if 90 per cent. of the industrialists of this country are in the Bankruptcy Court if only their theories are proved to be correct.
I will now come back to the question I want to ask. I have asked it for five years. I have asked four previous Chancellors of the Exchequer to say why motor car tyres should be the only component part of a motor car that is exempt from taxation now, and I ask the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a reason if he cannot see his way to tax them now.

Captain BENN: This Debate, of a general Protection versus Free Trade character, is the more interesting because many of us who have been in the House since the War have seen in practice the application of these principles, and, instead of merely debating in vacuo,  they can cite the actual experience from the imposition of the duty, the taking off of the duty, and the proposed re-imposition of the duty. We have seen the experiment present before our eyes, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree with me when I say that two things have been shown. The first is that the predictions of those who were most qualified to express an opinion, namely, those in the trade, were not realised by the event. It is really useless for the hon. and learned Member for
Swindon (Mr. Banks) to say, as he did yesterday, that the good effect of the Churchill Import Duties on motor cars and other things has not yet been exhausted, and that the period of Free Trade which we had since the late Chancellor of the Exchequer removed them has not washed out the good effect of the original duties. We have had experience.
We were told many things when the duties were taken off. I will not mention Mr. Morris particularly. He made some very wild statements, but I do not think anybody took him very seriously. He said that a million people would be put out of employment. However, I will take the case of Sir Edward Manville, who was a most respected Member of this House, and whose opinion was quite as entitled as that of Mr. Morris to serious examination. He put the number who would be unemployed at 100, 000—that was his estimate—with a loss of £7, 000, 000 one way and another, in unemployment insurance benefit and so on, in consequence. Mr. Morris went on to say that he would be forced to reduce his production by 50 per cent., and, there being a bye-election at that time in Oxford, he actually discharged 1, 300 out of 5, 000 men. What happened at the end? As soon as it was observed that the political attempt to secure the advantage of the tariff had failed, and that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), even though he were only a doctrinaire Free Trader—and I should not respect him the less—who was doing a great stroke for British industry and employment and the prosperity of the people of this country when he removed those duties, did not intend to reimpose them, Mr. Morris changed his tune and announced that, owing to a decrease in overhead charges, he had been able to reduce the price of his cars. In fact, he followed suit with all the other makers of motor cars and importers of motor cars, and made very considerable reductions in the price of his cars. It is not denied. I hope I am not merely engaging in controversy. I am stating what is known. The newspapers were full of advertisements.

Mr. STUART: Does the hon. and gallant Member know that Mr. Morris discharged those men because there was a bye-election at Oxford?

Captain BENN: What I said was—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the Morris works are not in the Oxford constituency at all? "] —I certainly should not attempt to take advantage of any immunity that one enjoys in this House to make a charge which was improper. I will say no more than this, that Mr. Morris was prominently identified with the fierce agitation to retain these duties, that Mr. Morris announced that their withdrawal would result in discharges, that there was a bye-election in Oxford, that discharges did take place, and that, when there was no hope of the reimposition of the duties, the men were taken back and prices were reduced. Hon. Members can make what they iike from those facts, none of which is open to challenge. What has been the general result of the removal of the duties? The general result has not been unprofitable to the motor car trade, taken as a whole. The "Times, "in explaining why the shares had not risen unduly after the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, said the financial results of the companies had shown expansion since the temporary removal of the duties. So it is a strange thing that all these prophecies of disaster were falsified, and I think the true explanation is this, that there is a very large unsatisfied demand for motor traction of one kind and another in this country.
I quoted some figures in the Debate on this subject last year, showing that, whereas in the United States of America there is a motor car for every 11 persons, in this country there is, or there was then, a motor car for every 110 persons, or only a tenth of the consumption of motor cars. Since that time, if hon. Members will look at the figures of the licences issued for motor vehicles, they will see that there has been a steady increase in the use of motor vehicles, when the duty was on, from 800 to 900 to 1, 000, and when the duty was off, to 1, 200 licensed motor vehicles. The truth is really this, that while some limited interests may make a profit out of a tax, the general motoring public, the people engaged in the motor car trade, as repairers and mechanics, and in all the ancillary trades that are concerned, have profited by the increased use of motor cars, to say nothing of the great addition to the comfort, convenience and
pleasure of the people. These duties have stood in the way of us enjoying in this country the same measure of motor transport that they enjoy in other countries, or in some of them.
I leave that purely commercial aspect of the question in order to deal with the political aspect. Those of us who remember the imposition of these duties in the first place have a real cause to feel that we have been betrayed in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1915, when the duties were imposed, there was a large Free Trade majority in this House, but there was something else, even more important than Free Trade, which was going on at the time, namely, a war, and it was proposed that certain duties should be imposed for the purpose, of course, as we know, of reducing consumption and getting on with the prosecution of the War. Some Free Traders, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), protested against those duties and said: If we let you put your foot in the door, you will try to force it in the interests of Protection, and we do not think you should take advantage of the War need to make the first step in the direction of Protection in this country. That was a very proper thing to say. The House of Commons, if it had cared to devote itself to this fiscal issue, would have prevented any Government from introducing protective duties, but it said: No, if Mr. McKenna says there is a war necessity involved, we are prepared to waive the fiscal question altogether, but we do not want this to be made an excuse in the future for launching on the slippery slope of Protection
Mr. Bonar Law's speech must be read in the light of that knowledge, and his pledge that they would not be kept on after the War was really intended to allay the justifiable anxiety of a Free Trade House of Commons. He said: Do not be afraid of this: it has no fiscal import whatever, and I will undertake to say that these duties will not be used as an excuse for turning this country from a Free Trade country into a Protectionist country. What has happened? We know very well that, as soon as the War was over, all these pledges were forgotten, and these duties were made the stock argument for altering the fiscal
system under which our taxation is raised. The Prime Minister used it in his speeches, and the Home Secretary used it in his speeches. They said: Look at these duties on motor cars; what a wonderful example they are; let us, therefore, impose a general tariff. I am speaking of the Election before last. We have always felt that it was a mistake to trust during the War those people who took advantage of the pre-occupation of the War in order to make this first step towards a policy which we distrust, and we have been justified. Everything that was said by my right hon. Friend and by other Free Traders in 1915 in the midst of the War has turned out to be true. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his word that these things would not be used in this way, his word was accepted, and the word of the Protectionists in the Cabinet was accepted. The door has been forced, and because of that we now find ourselves launched upon a change. What are the arguments given for this? Once you include gramophones, motor cars, musical instruments, and the other things, where are you going to stop? What answer can the Chancellor of the Exchequer possibly make when he is asked to extend these things; to this or that right hon. 'Gentleman or to this or that hon. Member? He can make no reply at all. What does he think now? What does he say to this:
 I say that every Englishman should bare the right to buy whatever he wants, wherever lie chooses, without restriction or discouragement from the State.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Made under any conditions whatever.

Captain BENN: I did not observe that any cheers greeted the quotation that I have just read, and I am wondering if there is going to be any response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman himself recognises the turn of phrase and the happy rhetoric in which he himself described the Free Trade position? May I ask him this simple question: These McKenna Duties were in operation in 1923. They have been in operation since 1915. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view? Is he prepared to make any reply —perhaps an immediate reply? What was his view in November, 1923, about the McKenna Duties? Was he in favour
of them or opposed to them in November, 1923?

Mr. MAXTON: He was not bigoted about it.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman cannot say—

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I do not want repeatedly to interrupt the speeches of hon. Members, because it is always difficult to distinguish between a real and a rhetorical question; but my own view in 1923 was that, if we were asked to decide whether this country should adopt a general protective tariff in everything, then the various questions in connection with these matters must be examined with the utmost severity. But that is not the issue that arises to-day, because of the pledge of the Prime Minister that no general tariff shall be introduced into this present Parliament.

Captain BENN: The House will be a little bit grateful to me for having provoked that answer from the right hon. Gentleman. There is one other thing, and that is the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the pledge of the Prime Minister; and because the Prime Minister is now here, I would like to ask him a question. The Prime Minister said in December last in this Parliament that there was only one avenue for any industry seeking protec- tion. and that was by means of the Safe- guarding of Industries Act. What did he mean by that? Did he mean that was one of the avenues left open, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was free to bring in his little heterogeneous collection of duties on motor cars, gramophones, and so on, when he receives the powerful demand of hon. Gentlemen below me, or the demand of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) for a tax on commercial motor vehicles, or the demand of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir H. Bird) for a tax on commercial motor vehicles? How can he, resist these taxes if you keep on this absurd collection of duties? There is no half-way house. We have to admit the principle or not admit it. The right hon. Gentleman once said that he believed in Free Trade as he believed in the multiplication table. I wonder what he thinks now of the multiplication table? We are not opposing these duties on
doctrinaire grounds. We are opposing them because they are the first step in an evil direction, and because once you allow these duties you cannot resist other demands. When these demands come, they mostly fall upon the commodities of the poor. The taxes of the right hon. Gentleman mean making the rich richer and the poor poorer. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!] Hon. Members opposite have one conception as to why they Are Free Traders. What they appear to say is that they are Free Traders because tariffs are merely instruments in the hands of those above in order to exploit the poor
What is the real policy of the party opposite? I do not. know. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the best or the most authoritative exponent of it. I cannot say what it is. There seems to be a diversity of opinion. If it be true that these things may form a danger, and are the first step, and lead to what. the majority of hon. Members opposite have in view, the definite objective to which they are marching with these stealthy strides, if so, then we are right in saying we will not take the first step, because we know where it is going to lead. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that protective taxes have been taken from the programme of the party. Is that true? That is not. the view of the Colonial Secretary. There was a controversy taking place in the Press not very long ago as to what really was the policy of the Prime Minister, and a very well known publicist wrote and said:
 That the policy of Protection had been erased from the programme of the Conservative party. 
To that the Colonial Secretary replied to the effect that the writer was completely misinformed, and that this policy had not been erased, and all that had happened was that a more direct and effective method of tariffs all round had been substituted for the somewhat slower method of legislation. In view of the. honest belief of the party opposite, in view of the obvious danger of these duties, in view of the convictions I have put forward, we oppose these duties to-day.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about business which I promised earlier in the
sitting, and with a view to meeting the general wish of the House. The discussion on the Silk Duties has been postponed until Monday, while the remainder of the Resolutions are to be brought to a conclusion by about 11. 30 this evening
On Monday, the consideration of the Silk Duties Resolution will be taken till 10 o'clock in the evening, and after that the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. I propose to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, merely to secure the passage of that Second Reading
On Tuesday, we will take the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, Report and Third Reading, until 8. 15; and then the Teacher's (Superannuation) Bill, Second Reading, until 11 o'clock. I do not propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule on that day, as I understand it is for the convenience of all parties that this arrangement should be come to
On Wednesday, there will be the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill, and at 8. 15, Private Members' Motions
On Thursday, we will take the Ministry of Labour Vote.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am sure we are very grateful to the Prime Minister for doing so much to meet the request we made earlier in the day. understand that there has been complete agreement. That being so, we on this side will do what we can to carry out the arrangement.

Sir J. SIMON: May I say that my Friends and I in this quarter of the House entirely agree with what has been said, and are much obliged to the Prime Minister for meeting what was very widely felt would be a desirable arrangement, so that we might have the Silk Duties discussion at an early hour.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: On the question of the arrangement in regard to the Scottish Bill. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why the discussion on this Bill is to finish when he proposes? The Liberal party has deserted the matter. Although it is quite true that the Liberal party have worked in it, yet we can quite understand the arrangement, because the Liberal party have deserted the whole question of the Church of Scotland entirely, and particularly the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), who in particular has very great knowledge of
this question. Certainly in my judgment there ought to be an extension of time beyond a quarter-past eight o'clock. Scotland is not receiving its due recognition. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, say that, and I say that this is a matter which in times gone by occupied the public mind and the national mind of Scotland for many years. It has been somewhat relegated to the background in later days, but I think it is not at all creditable that the Labour party should let down some of their own representatives who have carried on this work to such a degree that they are entitled in far more consideration than has been given to them at the present time. I make my protest as a Scottish representative.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad, as the Minister in charge, that these arrangements have been come to, because I think it is in the interests of the House of Commons and the country that the real issues in an important controversy should be decided at the best hours of our Parliamentary sitting. I certainly should have greatly regretted if the Silk Tax, in view of all the interest that has been excited by it, had had to be debated at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock or one o'clock in the morning, when the large number of interests affected by this Measure would not have been able to acquire any intelligible account from the newspapers of our Debate, and when, generally speaking, full Parliamentary justice could not have been done to the controversial issues involved. I hope that, apart from all the fighting which takes place on a Budget, we may manage, as far as possible by common arrangement, to bring the most important issues, where there are the sharpest divisions of opinion, to the test at times when the whole discussion and protest can be fully followed all over the country. That, at any rate, is the spirit in which the Government intend to conduct these matters.
On the subject of the so-called McKenna Duties, I have a preliminary observation to make. I think a great deal too much fuss is being made about these McKenna Duties. It is a great mistake to try to raise the question of Free Trade and Protection, to make out that the whole of those immense issues are jeopardised or involved in either direction by any-
thing that happens in regard to the McKenna Duties. The McKenna Duties cannot be judged apart from their history. We must look back over the last 10 years and see exactly how these duties have been treated before anyone can say what general fiscal issues they involve. Let me take, first of all, the issue raised about the pledge of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said—I have not the exact words in my mind, but the House can correct me—that there would be no general tariff, that we would not introduce Protection by a back door, and so forth. He also said that the means by which industries seeking protection under our safeguarding of industries powers—the means by which they could attain protection would be through the machinery set up in the Board of Trade and under rules which were published later.

Captain BENN: rose—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the hon. and gallant Member, whom we have listened to with the greatest pleasure and interest, will relax for a moment his incessant and insistent vigilance. It was never intended by such a declaration, the last declaration I have referred to, to limit in any way the full freedom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose in any year duties which had for their bona fide object the necessary service of the revenue of the country— never. No such limitation has ever been imposed upon me, nor was it intended in any way to impose such a limitation. If we are to say that because of these pledges the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day is inhibited from introducing taxes of this kind for revenue purposes, what is the position of Lord Oxford and all his Liberal colleagues, who, returned as they bad been upon an absolutely Free Trade basis, in the most strict and vehemently controversial aspect of the Free Trade issue before the War, thought it right to introduce these very duties without going back to their constituencies, without paying the slightest attention? [Interruption.] It is because they were not considered to be duties which affected the issue between Protection and Free Trade. They did it because these were duties which, for various purposes, they thought good, and which those of us who are now here and who were here then thought good, and they did it in order, amongst
other things, to sustain the revenue of the country
I base myself in these matters upon the declaration of Mr. McKenna:, a Free Trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced these duties. I will read the quotation:
The particular articles which were chosen have been chosen primarily upon the ground that their consumption is not required in this country; secondly, on the ground of improving our fallen exchanges, and, thirdly, upon the ground that in satisfying these two objects we shall also obtain a certain degree of revenue.
Those are the reasons which he adduced, those are the reasons which existed then, and those are the reasons which, no doubt modified by the difference in circumstances between peace and war, exist to-day; and those are the reasons, and those are the only reasons, upon which I base myself in proposing the reimposition of these taxes. Of course, it is true that the duties were introduced by Mr. McKenna in time of war. I was a member of the Government in 1915 which first proposed these duties. I was rather startled when I saw these proposals being made and heard them put forward. I thought to myself, "Well, of course, we are at war." And then we had the orthodoxy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)—otherwise, almost impeccable, it is the only stain on his orthodox escutcheon—to rely upon. We had Lord Oxford (then Mr. Asquith), and we had, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), then President of the Board of Trade and intimately connected with all this branch of the subject, and, of course, we had all the members of the Liberal party, ex-Ministers, who were members of the Coalition Government. That was in the time of war. But these duties were not only imposed with the authority and sanction of the Liberal Free Trade Members in time of war, they were imposed year after year in time of peace.
We have had several interesting and effective interventions in our Debate by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Sir A. Mond), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place to-day, who has a very varigated record on this subject. He was the principal Liberal opponent of these duties' when
they were first imposed. When Mr. Asquith came' forward and proposed the duties, when Mr. McKenna was his Chancellor of the Exchequer, when every one of the Liberal Ministers was rallied to their support, when the War was going on, when the need of acquiring and economising shipping space was so important, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs—he was not the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs then—stood up and boldly opposed the duty. Then came another phase, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, in an important position, after the War. Then, although his leaders had changed their positions and were now opponents of the duties, he became one of the strongest supporters of the duties. He vindicated them year after year; year after year he voted for them; year after year they were challenged in the House and he sustained the case for them. The right hon. Gentleman led us rather to suppose that it was rather against his will, and that he acquiesced for the sake of larger ends, that in his heart he did not like them. But he acquiesced in what was done. He bowed the knee in the Temple of Rimmon. He did much more than that; he led the chants, and when it came to that Safeguarding of Industries Act he very nearly conducted the service. Now, released from the cares and responsibilities of office, and placed in a position of extreme freedom, freedom which almost trenches upon mental anarchy, the right hon. Gentleman comes before us denouncing the vices of Socialism and posing as one of its strongest opponents, while at the same time perfectly ready to adopt any sloppy fallacy that is likely to be popular at the moment. Finally, he invites us to vindicate the infallibility of the Free Trade system by adopting some principle of a general subsidy towards wages in the less successful industries.
I am quite ready to contrast my record in this matter with his. I was one of the original Ministers who proposed these McKenna Duties 10 long years ago. When I was out of office during the War I never opposed them. When I resumed office during the War I continued to support them; year after year, for six or seven long years I supported them. When I was out of office last year, and these duties were repealed, I denounced their repeal, and now I
stand here at this box to reverse the decision of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is perfectly true that in the election of 1923, when the whole main, fundamental issue of Free Trade or Protection was definitely raised, I naturally adopted an entirely combative, fighting position over the whole field. Certainly I did so. If we are going to be told that these duties are the thin end of the wedge to re-establish a general system of Protection in this country, carrying with it, as it would do, protective duties upon food, certainly we must examine thorn and resist them and criticise—certainly; but that decision does not arise to-day, and I stand here as a Minister in this Government relying, as I do, with the utmost confidence on the pledges that were given in the electoral programme and platform on which this party obtained its great majority.
Once that has been said, we are perfectly entitled to examine these matters in their proper relations, not as raising the great controversies which have disturbed and greatly darkened counsel in this country in fiscal matters for so many years, but as practical measures for the reinforcement of the revenue without. injury to the industries of the land.
Now I come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). He said the other day that he deplored the raising of this problem, but who raised it? These duties were incorporated in the general fiscal system of the country over what was quite a long period in these rapidly changing days, a period of nearly 10 years. Here were these duties r reducing revenue, industries being built, up upon them, and manufacturers taking advantage of them. [An Hox. MEMBER: "That is Protection. "] Certainly it is a measure of Protection. There they were, slumbering, not only innocuously, but with fruitful and advantageous results to the revenue. Who was it took up these duties, took them by the ears, and brought the whole thing into the forefront of British politics, and made these duties a great challenge and a great issue, and the cause of bitterness and misunderstanding amongst those who ought to have agreed in order to make sham bonds of union between those who are irrevocably sundered? It was a party manœuvre.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The, bond did not last very long.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon Gentleman used these duties as a partisan measure to obtain Liberal support—Liberals were more numerous then than they are now—and to divide the Liberals from the Conservatives with whom they had so many bonds is common and so many differences in common against the Socialist party, in order that the right hon. Gentleman and his party, having isolated them, might destroy them at leisure. Moltke, Ludendorff—none of the great strategists planned so artfully and so successfully. I say that was a partisan act and it aroused great resentment. It caused a great disturbance amongst those who were used as pawns in the party game. It caused a great deal of disturbance to the industries of the country, and aroused great political resentment.
Then came an election at which hundreds of Members condemned the repeal of those duties. It was a subject put forward on every platform before the electors in every constituency. lion. Members stood on the platform at the election and condemned the repeal of these duties, and they were supported in an enormous majority of constituencies by a large majority of the extended electorate. In view of the challenge being given and taken up, the matter having been made a part of the fight in the election, we are bound—after all majorities have some rights—to restore the status quo in this matter, and that is all we are doing.
One of my hon. Friends said: "Why did you not put the ditty on commercial vehicles?" Another referred to a duty on tyres. There is a lot to be said for that. If you were really approaching duties of this kind in a scientific spirit and just endeavouring to deal with luxury articles from the point of view of raising revenue, and at the same time giving a certain stimulus to those trades at the expense of the general community, if you were doing that, then these McKenna. Duties would not constitute the schedule of your proposals. As a matter of fact, we are now simply undoing what was done last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). It is a case of "as you
were. "That is all we are, doing, but that is what we are determined to do.
I have, said this much on what I will call the historic reasons for the reintroduction of these duties, and I think in the ordinary fair play of politics these reasons will be understood in every part of the country. I also claim that, purely on the merits, there is a good case far obtaining £3, 000, 000 of revenue by the reimposition of these duties. I have already explained that the Budget this year consists of a series of balances nicely adjusted. You have the Death Duties and the Super-tax marching hand in hand. If you had not the one you would not have the other. Then we have the Silk Tax paying for the remission of the Income Tax on earned incomes. We have war pensions declining, and the new pensions extending.
Then there is the execution of our pledges in regard to Imperial Preference, which will cost between £1, 400, 000 and £1, 500, 000 this year. This is only the execution of pledges given to the representatives of the Dominions who came here at our call and received these pledges in fulfilment of the Resolutions of the Imperial Conference of 1917. These McKenna Duties just pay for this, and next year they will just pay for the fulfilment of these imperial and Colonial Preferences and the additional £1, 000, 000 set aside in order to develop Imperial trade in this country. I think that is a very good balance and a very good way of dealing with this problem.
I have said that this does not in my judgment raise the controversy between Free Trade and Protection, and I think it is a great mistake for Free Traders to try to raise the enormous issues connected with the general fiscal policy of this great country upon such a small and flimsy pretext. Having regard to the historic origin of this proposal, I think it is a grave mistake to try and pretend that the whole fiscal policy of the country is to be changed because, forsooth, we reimpose duties which are well known and have been in existence for the last 10 years, and which it is perfectly well known are imposed not in the sense of raising that issue at all. if you are going to raise that issue, you are going to bring your cause into action on the worst possible ground.
if you look at the facts disclosed in the interval between the repeal of these duties and the present time, and compare the condition of things before they were repealed with the condition of things afterwards, certain very broad conclusions undoubtedly emerge. In, the first place, it is perfectly clear that the repeal checked employment. I am not in the least dissuaded by the fact that there has been more employment in the motor trade. We have been told that 90, 000 more motor cars are on the road this year. Of course, when anybody is adopting a new transport system it is perfectly natural that there should be a great increase of employment. But I am perfectly certain that within the general forward movement of the trade, there were distinct eddying and disturbances of trade. The other trades concerned were certainly affected. With regard to musical instruments and watches and clocks there is not the slightest doubt that an adverse effect has been produced upon employment.
The next fact that emerges is the enormous increase in importations. We had no idea of increasing foreign importations. Again, take the case of clocks and watches. The monthly average of the importation of complete clocks for January to July, 1924—that is a period of six months before the duties were repealed—was 177, 000, and the monthly average in the six months afterwards was 520, 944. In the case of gold watches, for six months before the duties were repealed the average was 10, 476, and the average for the six months after that period was 41, 270. In the case of silver watches, before the duties were repealed the average was 17, 000 and afterwards 72, 450. Taking other watches for the six months before the duties were repealed, the total was 174, 075, and for the six months afterwards 460, 957.
Look at this. Taking gold watch cases the average for the six months before the repeal of the duties was 29, 461, and after the repeal of the duties, 14, 776. In the case of silver watch cases for the six months before the duties were repealed the total was 49, 807, and after 33, 124. Observe what has happened. You must look at facts, because they look at you. Here you have an enormous increase in the importation of finished articles and
a decrease in the importation of the parts, showing that a large amount of work had been done outside this country which might have been done inside the, country. This is borne out by the evidence of the Board of Trade, and my information is that factories which were working at full time are now working at greatly reduced time, and we have seen the setting up of a whole. new factory in Switzerland for fitting the parts of the watches into their cases.
I know perfectly well if the State, with all its power and wealth chooses to give an advantage to particular industries they will derive a very great measure of prosperity. but I say as a free trader that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are making an enormous mistake by raising on this the general issue as to whether this country should revert to Protection or remain on the whole on the broad basis of Free Trade. They are doing this on the sole ground of the reimposition of duties under which we have lived for the last 10 years, upon which men of every party are committed, or at least compromised, and which we now reimpose with an ample majority, and with a full mandate from the country for purposes which are essential for the ordinary revenue of the year.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has entertained and amused the House with a very admirable example of the Attorney's method of abusing his opponents when he has no case of his own. The only justification that the right hon. Gentleman could claim for the inconsistency of his record upon this question was that there were some who had been not more consistent than himself. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to defend these duties on the ground that they are Protectionist in character or in intent, and he cannot, therefore, be very grateful to the Members of his own party who have taken part in the Debate during the last two days, for every speech which has been delivered from the Tory benches has been a speech welcoming these proposals on the ground that they were Protectionist in their character and steps towards a general scheme of Protection.
The right hon. Gentleman went at some length into the history of this question, and I do not think that the House of Commons has ever been treated to a more
grotesque perversion of the historical facts of a case than that which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman in the speech which he has just made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman repeated—for a great part of his speech was simply a repetition of what he said in his Budget speech last week—he repeated almost in identical words what he described as the historical justification for the reimposition of the McKenna Duties. The simple fact of the matter is that these duties were imposed in war time, under war conditions, and for war purposes, and there was a definite and distinct understanding that they would be repealed when the War was over. I have no responsibility for the fact that these duties were retained for three or four years after the War.
It is quite true that the Committee on Reconstruction recommended that these duties might be kept on for two or three years, in order that the motor trade might recover from War conditions, but why were these particular trades suggested in 1915 for the application of these ditties? The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not inform the House upon that very important matter. The motor industry, clocks, watches and the other manufactures included under these ditties, were selected because these things were not being produced in this country at that time. Motor factories and these other factories had been turned into rminftion works. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was a member of the Government at that time, and, if that were so, he knows quite well that it was an understanding between the Free Trade and the Protectionist Members of the Government that these particular articles should be selected, because at that time, owing to the fact that there was no home production of those articles, no question of Free Trade or Protection could possibly arise by the imposition of these duties. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know why there is so much fuss about this question, and he was very severe in his references to the motives which prompted me in repealing these duties 12 months ago. I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite incapable of understanding that any person can be moved or prompted by honest political convictions. [Interruption.] At any rate, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman this, that my action last year in repealing these duties
was not the price that I had to pay for political apostasy.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Is that to show the weakness of your case?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, it shows the in- ability of the hon. Member opposite to hear the truth. The right hon. Gentle- man says that his party had a mandate for the action he proposes to take. That I absolutely deny. We had a mandate for what we did last year. We had a majority of Members in this House who were pledged, not merely by their political principles, but by pledges under which they had been returned to this House, to take the earliest possible opportunity of repealing these duties; but it is necessary to keep on reminding hon. Members opposite that they represent a minority of the electors of this country, and that it is only by the eccentricity of our electoral system that they happen to have a majority in this House. The Government have no mandate for the re-imposition of these duties. The majority of the electors in this country, notwithstanding Red letter scares, not- withstanding the fact that many hon. Members opposite have been returned to this House by the votes, as I have said before, of hundreds of thousands of old women who were dragged out of theirhomes—[Interruption.] The Government have no mandate, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the Prime Minister's pledge, made, surely, one of the most extraordinary admissions ever made by a Minister of the Crown. I tell the Prime Minister that he cannot long remain silent under the charge that his Government, through the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had violated the pledge that the Prime Minister gave in this House some months ago.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:.

1. British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1925
. Charitable Trusts Act, 1925
. Administration of Justice Act, 1925

WAYS AND MEANS.

Question again proposed,  That those words be there inserted. .

Mr. SNOWDEN: After this rather unfortunate interruption, I may experience some little difficulty in getting steam up to the pressure at which it stood when the intervention took place. At that moment I was dealing with what I described as a most extraordinary statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He took entire responsibility for the proposal to re-impose these duties, and in explanation or defence of the Prime Minister's pledge of December last he said the Prime Minister never intended that that pledge should limit in the slightest degree the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That means that the Prime Minister may stand by his declaration that there is no avenue by which an industry can be protected in this Parliament except through the new Safeguarding of Industry machinery, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer can impose any duty of any character upon any industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that these duties are of a protective character, and I have already pointed out that every Tory Member of the House who has taken part in these Debates has claimed them as an instalment of Protection. Might I recommend these hon. Members to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-morrow and then I should like them to tell me whether he is a Free Trade,: or a Protectionist. Some arguments he advanced which are the commonplaces of Free Trade argument. There were others which are the commonplaces of Tariff Reform argument. He quoted some very imposing figures, which I was quite unable to follow, as to the importation of watches during recent years. but why should he deplore an increase in the importation of these goods? I understood he was imposing these duties solely for the purpose of raising revenue. It should be his duty, so far as he can, to encourage the importation of these articles. In another part of his speech the Tariff Reformer appeared and he deplored this increase in the importation of these goods on the ground that they were taking work away from British workmen. I am therefore justified in asking whether we are to assume from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he is a sort of Siamese twin, both a Free Trader and a Protectionist.
He defends these duties on the ground that they are luxury taxes. Let us look at that. He wanted revenue. The revenue he will derive will be very small—at the maximum £3, 000, 000 out of a revenue of £800, 000, 000. He is going to get £3, 000, 000 unless the Protectionist part of the policy succeeds in keeping the goods out altogether. I certainly cannot congratulate him on his ingenuity. He evidently wanted to find something that he could tax as a luxury. He had not sufficient ingenuity to devise a new tax except the proposed duty upon silk, and I doubt if he could claim any credit even for that, because, in the course of his Budget speech, he said the problem of putting a tax on silk had baffled the genius of every Chancellor of the Exchequer for 100 years. He had not been at the Treasury six months before his great financial capacity succeeded where the 100 previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had failed. We shall see before the Budget reaches the final stage how successful he has been in solving the problem which has baffled every previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has received no. encouragement in regard to that matter up to the present time, for his proposal has not a single friend in the country, either in the newspapers or amongst the public.
If lie had wanted to get revenue from a luxury tax why did he confine himself to half a dozen articles which will bring him in a paltry £3, 000, 000 a year? An answer was given from that Bench two or three days ago that the value of imported diamonds and furs amounts to £20, 000, 000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman deplores the fuss that his proposal to reimpose these duties has caused. If he had put a tax—I am not saying I should have approved of it. At any rate I think I know sufficient about national finance and national taxation to know that there is very little to be said, either in theory or in practice, for a special luxury tax. But, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman thinks differently. He wants to raise revenue by the taxation of luxuries and he goes to cinematograph films, the luxury of the poor people. He is going to tax the working man who has saved a few pounds and bought a motor cycle and sidecar in order to take his wife and children out at the week-end. The right hon. Gentleman took credit to
himself last week for having reduced the Income Tax upon the lower ranges of income. He tells us to-day that ho took care at the same time to get a compensating revenue by taxing the articles they wear. That is the whole principle of his Budget. He had not sufficient ingenuity to devise any means of getting additional revenue. The only thing he could do was to take off here and to put on there, and the net result of it all is that he is going to tax the people £1, 000, 000 more this year than was estimated for last year.
7.0 P.M.
About his luxury taxes, £20, 000, 000 of diamonds and furs came into the country last year. If he had put a 33⅓ per cent. duty upon that he would have got £6, 000, 000. [An HON. MEMEER:"Would he?"] If there is a reduction in the import of the articles the right hon. Gentleman proposes to tax now he is not going to get his £3, 000, 000. I know that the right hon. Gentle man preferred cinematograph films and motor bicycles to furs and diamonds. He told us last week that the millionaire was the special object of his compassion. They are taxed too high already, he said. The millionaires are the people who wear the diamonds. That is why the right hon. Gentleman preferred to tax the cinematograph film and the motor bicycle to the furs and the diamonds of the millionaire. Where is this argument of taxation for revenue going to lead the right hon. Gentleman? He said, when trying to explain the Prime Minister's pledge, that he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had the. right and power to propose taxes of this character.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With the approval of the Cabinet.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly. That goes without saying. I do not say that the Chancellor had the power to enact; I said he had the power to propose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, and I certainly cannot congratulate the Prime Minister that he did not dispose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals. Where is his argument about taxing commodities for revenue going to lead him? If it is revenue he wants, then he can justify a tax upon any article coming into this country, even food. I am not going into much detail,
because whatever may be said in this House, everybody knows what the real facts are. I take it that hon. Members agree with me what the facts are. The Chancellor made the astounding statement that the repeal of those duties last year had had the effect of lessening what otherwise would have been the volume of employment in the motor trade. How does he know? He can think anything, and some people can say anything. Fortunately it is beyond the capacity even of the financial genius of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a tax on thought. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] T-H-O-U-G-T. Well, now, at any rate, an ounce of fact is worth a, ton of the right hon. Gentleman's assumption. What happened? There are thousands more people employed in the motor industry to-day than there were before those duties were taken off, and, as has been pointed out in the course of the Debate this afternoon, the motor industry during the last six months has been the only bright spot in the engineering trade of this country. The right hon. Gentleman talks about imports, but he was careful to say nothing about exports. The export of British-made motor cars since those duties were repealed has nearly doubled. Why?
This question is constantly being put: what harm were those duties doing? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what harm they were doing. Slumbering, he said. Yes. And they had made the motor car industry slumber. That is the harm the duties were doing. An hon. Member who took part in the Debate in the early part of this afternoon—I believe he comes from Manchester—spoke of the great benefit that the duties had been to the motor industry. He knows as well as I do that the principle motor manufacturing firm in his neighbourhood had, under the operation of these duties, the quotation of its ordinary shares reduced from 26s. to 5s. He knows that another well-known firm in Manchester in the motor trade whose shares stood considerably above par before these duties were imposed, is now in liquidation, and its shares are absolutely worthless. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say last year? He is going to hear something to his advantage. He told us last year that 70 per cent, of the
motor firms in this country were in the hands of the banks. I remember an hon. Member, who usually sits below the Gangway, telling us that the motor industry under the operation of those tariffs had lost £12, 000, 000 worth of capital What harm were the duties doing I That is what they were doing. Bringing down the value from 26s. to 5s.; and in 70 per cent. of the firms losing £12, 000, 000 of the shareholders' capital. That is all the effect of Protection. It makes them slumber, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, in a sense of false security.
What happened when the duties were repealed? It woke them up. They knew that they would have to rely upon themselves, and upon their own initiative and efficiency. That has been such a boon to the motor trade, following upon the repeal of the duties. We had a new explanation put forward to-day. It was admitted that the motor trade had been more prosperous during the last six months than it previously had been. Ah, but they said, that is the momentum following the time when the tariff was in operation. It has taken hon. Members opposite nine months to discover that explanation. Not one of them had the ingenuity last year during our debates upon this question to say that there would be a momentum which would carry on the motor trade for a year or two. On the contrary, what happened? Most dismal prophecies of immediate ruin to the motor trade. Men were actually dismissed before the repeal came into force, to be reinstated as soon as the employers who had dismissed them discovered that intimidation of that character had no effect upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the harm that the duties did when they were in operation.
What good is the re-imposition of those duties going to be. Not one word from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except that they will give him £3, 000, 000 of revenue. They are going to do a great deal of harm. There is one effect that the duties when in operation had to which I did not refer just now, and I am sure that the Chancellor, if he has not forgotten everything he used to say in those wonderful Free Trade speeches of his, will agree with me, and that is if you put a tax on an imported article, it
raises the price of a similar article of home manufacture. Suppose those duties had been in operation last year, the Chancellor of 'the Exchequer would have got £3, 000, 000. If they are going to have the effect that hon. Members opposite want them to have; if they are going to have a protective character; if they are going to help the British motor industry, they must raise the prices of motor cars made in this country. £36, 000, 000 was the value of motor cars made in this country last year. These duties are going to have the effect of putting a tax of 10 of 12 millions pounds upon the purchasers of motor cars. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to get £3, 000, 000. The motor car buyer and user is going to pay £12, 000, 000. Let hon. Members opposite look at the files of the newspapers for August and September last year and see the flaring advertisements of reductions in the price of British motor cars. What was the explanation of that? The fact was that the price had been kept up hitherto owing to the protection that the industry got by the tariff on imported cars. I do not care where you look, the effect is always the same.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to watches. Let me refer to pianos. I have here a letter from a large British manufacturer of pianos, and he tells me that in the last three months of last year, the British manufacturers of pianos took 10, 000 more actions than they-did in the corresponding period of the previous year, when those McKenna Duties were in operation. These were largely imported. Why? Because there is only one firm in this country, one good firm, which make those actions. If you

can prohibit the importation of these actions from abroad, they can charge practically what prices they like, therefore the price of English made pianos would be correspondingly increased. Every argument as to what the effect of the repeal of these duties would be has been more than amply justified by events. Twelve months ago, I should not have been surprised if there had been a short period of dislocation of trade. But even that has not happened. The repeal of these Duties last year is the most triumphant vindication of Free Trade principles that anybody could possibly have. The right hon. Gentleman has denied that the re-imposition of these Duties is a step towards Protection. Whether that be his intention or not, it is the effect. There is no difference either in principle or effect between the imposition of these Duties and the imposition of a duty upon imported steel, which might be made as the result of the recommendation of a Board of Trade Safeguarding of Industries Committee. They are Protectionist in character. The revenue from them is negligible. If the right hen. Gentleman had wanted that revenue, he could have got it in fifty other ways. They are Protectionist in character, and they justify the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the Tory party
is a party of vested interests, corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad, and trickery by tariff jugglery.
We opposed these proposals because they are an instance of the truth of the right hon. Gentleman's words. They are a piece of tariff jugglery.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted. ".

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 320.

Division No 84.]
AYES
[7. 19 p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Fisher. Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clowes, S.
Forrest, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Ammon, Charles George
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gosling, Harry


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.


Barr, J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Day, Colonel Harry
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dennison, R.
Groves, T.


Briant, Frank
Duckworth, John
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Bromfield, William
Dunnico, H.
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchanan. G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hardle, George D.


Cape, Thomas
Fenby, T. D.
Harney, E. A.


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Stephen, Campbell


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Murnin, H.
Sutton, J. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, R. A.


Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Owen, Major G.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P, 


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.
Varley, Frank B.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Vlant, S. P.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Riley, Ben
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelly, W. T.
Rose, Frank H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wedgwood, Rt. Hen. Joslah


Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, J. C.


Lansbury, George
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, W.


Lowth, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)
Wignall, James


Lunn, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, C P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams David (Swansea E.)


Mackinder, W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


MacLaren, Andrew
Smillie, Robert
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, B. Lees (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


March, s.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Windsor, Walter


Maxton, James
Snell, Harry
Wright, W.


Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)



Montague, Frederick
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Morris, R. H.
Stamford, T. W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovll)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, Sir Thomas(Cirencester)


Albery, Irving James
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


 Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Drewe, C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S
Calne, Gordon Hall
Eden, Captain Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cassels, J. D.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Ashmead-Bartlett. E.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ellis, R. G.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Atkinson, C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Everard, W. Lindsay


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chapman, Sir S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Falls, Sir Charles F.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Christie, J. A.
Fermoy, Lord


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fleming, D. P.


Beamish, Captain T. p. H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ford, P. J.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Forestier-Walker, L.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Clayton, G. C.
Fester, Sir Harry S.


Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bennett, A. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Berry, Sir George
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gadle. Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Bethell, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope, Major William
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Bird, Sir H. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Courtauid, Major J. s.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Courthope, Lieut-Col. George L.
Gee, Captain R.


Blundell, F. N.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Goff, Sir Park


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Ernest(Chester, Crewe)
Grace, John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grant, J. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Crook, C. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Greenwood. Rt. Hn. sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Briggs, J. Harold
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Gretton, Colonel John


Briscoe, Richard George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grotrlan, H. Brent


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Daiziel, Sir Davison
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, HemelHempst'd)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon Rad.)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hammersley, S. S


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hanbury, C.




Harland, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Haslam, Henry C.
Meller, R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Hawke, John Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. S. M.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison, H, (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'c'and)


Hogg. Rt. Hon. sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Murchison, C. K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Storry Deans, R.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Neville, R. J.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Homan, C. W. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Nuttall, Ellis
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oakley, T.
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Templeton, W. P.


Huntingfield. Lord
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson. Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon. s.)


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n& p'bl's)
Perring, William George
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Phillipson, Mabel
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Jacob, A. E.
Pielou, D. P.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pilcher, G.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kinq, Captain Henry Douglas
price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Raine, W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lamb, J. Q.
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wells, S. R.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Remer, J. R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


loder, J. de V.
Rice. Sir Frederick
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wlnterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lougher, L.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wolmer, viscount


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Womersley, W. J.


Lumley, L. R.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rye, F. G.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Macintyre, Ian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wragg, Herbert


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Macquisten, F. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank



MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.
Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Hacking.

Amendment proposed: In line 1, after the word "duties," to insert, the words.
 other than the duty on clocks, watches. and the component parts of clocks and watches." —[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted. ".

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 318.

Division No 84.]
AYES.
[7. 19 p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Beckett, John(Gateshead)
Charleton, H. C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Clowes. S.


Ammon, Charles George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Briant, Frank
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Broad, F. A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromfield, William
Compton, Joseph


Barnes. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Ccnnolly. M.


Barr, J.
Buchanan, G.
Cove, W. G.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smillie, Robert


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, Ben (Bormondsey, Rotherhithe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James.
Snell. Harry


Duckworth, John
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Dunnico, H
Lunn, William
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stamford, T. W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stephen, Campbell


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
MacLaren, Andrew
Taylor, R. A.


Forrest, W.
MacLean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Thurtle, E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.


Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H
Wallhead, Richard C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Grundy, T. W.
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Palln, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Weish, J. C.


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley, W.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Riley, Ben
Wignall, James


Hayday, Arthur
Ritson. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayes, John Henry
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Eland)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow;


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James
Windsor, Walter


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wright, W.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John



Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
TELLERS FOR THEAYES. —


Kelly, W. T.
Sitch. Charles H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brass, Captain W.
Cooper, A. Duff


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cope, Major William


Albery, Irving James
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Couper. J. B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briggs, J. Harold
Courtauid, Major J. S.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briscoe, Richard George
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brittain. Sir Harry
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Ashmead-Bartlett. E.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crook, C. W


Astbury, Lieut. Commander F. W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crooke, j. smedley (Derltend)


Atholi, Duchess of
Bullock, Captain M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Atkinson, C.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Cunlifte, Joseph Herbert


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Burton, Colonel H. w.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Calne, Gordon Hall
Davidson. J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Campbell, E. T.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cassels, J. D.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Beamish. Captain T. P. H.
Cayzer, Sir c. (Chester, City)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bennett, A. J.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Chapman, Sir S.
Drewe, C.


Berry, sir George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bethell, A.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Betterton. Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ellis, R. G.


Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Clarry, Reginald George
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Falls, Sir Charles F.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fermoy, Lord




Fleming, D. P.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rye, F. G.


Ford, P. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Salmon, Major I.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lougher, L.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catlicart)
Savery, S. S.


Gates, Percy
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Maclntyre, Ian
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Gee, Captain R.
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Goff, Sir Park
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shepperson, E. W.


Grace, John
Macquisten, F. A.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Grant, J. A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Skelton, A. N.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th'w, E.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gretton, Colonel John
Margesson, Capt. D.
Smithers, Waldron


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'san, E.)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Storry Deans, R.


Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hawke, John Anthony
Murchison, C. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frater


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Neville, R. J.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Templeton, W. P.


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Thomson., Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nuttall, Ellis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Oakley, T.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Holland, Sir Arthur
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Homan, C. W. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Peering, William George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
poto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watts, Dr. T.


Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'and, Whlteh'n)
poto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Wells. S. R.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Phillpson, Mabel
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
pielou, D. P.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Huntingfield, Lord
Pilcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Asshetor
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hurst, Gerald B.
price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n& P'bl's)
Radford, E. A.
Winby, Colonel L. p.


Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Raine, W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jackson, Lieut-Colonel Hon. F S.
Ramsden, E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wolmer, Viscount


Jacob, A. E.
Reid, capt. A. S. C. (warrington)
Womersley, W. J.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Reid. D. D. (County Down)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


King. Captain Henry Douglas
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lamb. J. O.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lane-Fox. Colonel George R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wragg, Herbert


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford Hereford)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ropner. Major L.



Little, Dr. E. Graham
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

Amendment proposed: In line 1, after the word "duties, "to insert the words
other than the duty on, musical instruments, including gramophones, pianolas, and other similar instruments. "—[Mr. Pethiek T. Lawrence.].

Question put, "That those words be there inserted".

The House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 315.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[7. 42 p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ammon, Charles Geroge
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Barnes, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Basker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Barr, J.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Charieton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thorne, W. {West Ham, Plalstow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duckworth, John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, c.
March, S.
Viant, S. p.


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Forrest, W.
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morrison, R. C, (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wignall, James


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonbv, Arthur
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
 Williams, Dr. J, H. (Lianelly)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Rlley, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterclifle)


Hall, G. H. (Marthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardle, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Windsor, Walter


Harney, E. A.
Rose, Frank H.
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Hayes. John Henry
Sexton, James
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, sir Arthur C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brass, Captain W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Clayton, G. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briggs, J. Harold
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Ashmead-Bartlett. E.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, A. Duff


Atholl, Duchess of
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Maj. D. c. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Bullock, Captain M.
Craig, Ernest(Chester, Crewe)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Butler, Sir Geoflrey
Crook, C. W.


Bellairs Commander Carlyon W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Caine, Gordon Hall
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bennett A. J.
Campbell, E. T.
Cunilffe, Joseph Herbert


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cassels, J. D.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Berry 3lr George
Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bethell, A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Betterton Henry B.
Cazaiet, Captain Victor A.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chapman, Sir S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Blundell, F. N.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)




Dawson, Sir Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
 Ropner, Major L.


Drewe, C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rye, F. G.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Ellis, R. G.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Everard, W. Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Loder, J. de. V.
Savery, S. S.


Fermoy, Lord
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Scott, Sir Lesile (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Fleming, D. P.
Lougher, L.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Ford, P. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shaw. Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Skelton, A. N.


Gadie, Lieut. Colonel Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Galbralth, J. F. W.
Maclntyre, Ian
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Ganzonl, Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gates, Percy
Macmillan, Captain H.
Smithers, Waldron


Gauit, Lieut.-col. Andrew Hamilton
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Gee, Captain R.
Macqulsten, F. A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sder, E.)


Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grace, John
Margesson, Capt. D.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grant, J- A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Storry Deans, R.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'W, E.)
Meller, R. J.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Merriman, F. B.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Gretton, Colonel John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffeon Walden)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sugden, sir Wilfred


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sykes, Major Gen. sir Frederick H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon Lieut. Col. J. T. C
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Templeton, W. P.


Hanbury, C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harland, A.
Murchison, C. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennlngton)
Nelson Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nevillem, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Haslam, Henry C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholion, William G. (Petersfield)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
oakley, T.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watts, Dr. T.


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wells, S. R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Penny, Frederick George
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. &Wh'by)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perring, William George
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Peto, G (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Phillipson, Mabel
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Pielou, D. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Homan C. W. J.
Plicher, G.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Radford, E. A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Raine, W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Hudson R. S(Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hunter-Weston Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Huntingfield, Lord
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hurd Percy A.
Remer, J. R.
Wragg, Herbert


Hurst, Gerald B.
Remnant, Sir James
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n& P'bl's)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



Jackson. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rice, Sir Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth Cen'l)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Cope and Major Sir Harry


Jacob, A. E.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Barnston.

Amendment proposed: In line 1, after the word "duties, "to insert the words
other than the duties on cinematograph films. "—[Mr. Pethies-Lawrence.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted. ".

The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 315.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[7. 53 p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hardle, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Scrymgeour. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bramfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duckworth, John
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Forrest, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley. W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Oliver, George Harold
Wignail, James


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Palln, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Henry B.
Cassels, J. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Blundell, F. N.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Chapman, Sir S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brass, Captain W.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Christie, J. A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Atholl, Duchess of
Briggs, J. Harold
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Atkinson, C.
Briscoe, Richard George
Clarry, Reginald George


Balrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brlttaln, Sir Harry
Clayton, G. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Broun-Llndsay. Major H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beamish, Captain T. P. H
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cooper, A. Duff


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bullock, Captain M.
Cope, Major William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Couper, J. B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Bennett, A. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrgy
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Isllngtn. N.)


Berry, Sir George
Calne, Gordon Hail
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Bethell, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry




Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.
Huntingfield, Lord
Remnant, Sir James


Crook, C. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n& p'bl's)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ta'y)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackaon, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Herelard, Hereford)


Daiziel, sir Davison
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ropner, Major L.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempat'd)
Jacob, A. E.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynomouth)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lamb, J. Q
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Drewe, C.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Savery, S. S.


Ellis, R. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westons-s.-M.)
Locker Lampson, G. (WoodGreen)
Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Loder, J. de V
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lord, Walter Greaves
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, L.
Shepperson, E. W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Fermoy, Lord.
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fleming, D. P.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne. C.)


Ford, P. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Forestier Walker, L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smithers, Waldron


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macintyre, Ian
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
McLean, Major A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francia E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Galbraith, J. F. W
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier General E.
Storry Deans, R


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gee, Captain R.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Goff, Sir Park
Meller, R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Grace, John
Merriman, F. B
Sueter, Rear Admiral Murray Fraser


Grant, J. A
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Slr H. (W'th's'w, E.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Templeton, W. P.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morden, Col. W Grant
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison Bell Sir Arthur Clive
Ward Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hammersley, S. S.
Murchison, C. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hanbury, C.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Harland, A.
Nelson Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harrison, G. J. C.
Neville, B. J.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newton, sir D. G. C (Cambridge)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Watts, Dr. T.


Haslam, Henry C
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wells, S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Nuttall, Ellis
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T 
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Penny, Frederick George
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Henniker Hughan, Vice Adm. Sir A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perring, William George
Wise, Sir Fredric


Herbert, s. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Womersley, W. J.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Phillpson, Mabel
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pleiou, D. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge&Hyde)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Plicher, G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


holt, Captain H. P.
Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir S. Hill (HighPeak)


Homan, C. W. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Radford, E. A.
Wragg, Herbert


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ramsden, E.



Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Viscount Curzon


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Remer, J. R.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir J. SIMON and other Members: In line 3, after the word "twenty-five," to insert the words
 until the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-six.

8.0 P.M.

Sir J. SIMON: This is an Amendment which, at a convenient time, we desire to bring before the Committee, but, in view of the hour and the arrangements that have been made for the Debate, I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division now. I give notice, however, that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, I shall put down the Amendment, and trust that it nay be called and accepted, or carried to a Division.

Mr. SPEAKER: The last Amendment to this Resolution on the Order Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird)—in line 6, after the word "negatives, "to insert the words
 but for the purposes of the charge on motor cars the exemptions from the new import duty provided by Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915. for motor cars intended to be used solely as motor omnibuses or motor ambulances, or in connection with the conveyance of goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, or by a local authority as fire engines or otherwise for the purposes cf their fire-brigade service, and chassis, component parts, and accessories for such motor cars, shall not be revived, 
is out of order, as it proposes a new charge.

Captain BENN: On that point, may I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that this is a very important Amendment, put down on behalf of the rank and file of the Government supporters, and is it not possible for a vote to be taken on this Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member ought to be the last person to wish the rank and file to be out of order.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Order read for Consideration of Fourth and subsequent Resolutions.

SILK (CUSTOMS).

4. "That on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the following duties of customs shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following goods, that is to say—

Silk:

Cocoons and waste of all kinds—





s.
d.


Undischarged
the lb.
1
6


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
3
0


Raw—


Undischarged
the lb.
4
0


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
5
9


Thrown or spun, including yarns and threads of all kinds—



Undischarged
the lb.
4
8


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
6
8


Tissue containing silk—



Undischarged
the lb.
5
3


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
7
9


Artificial silk:



Yarn thread, straw, or waste
the lb.
3
0


Tissue containing artificial silk
the lb.
3
6


Articles not heretofore specified made wholly or in part of silk or artificial silk
 A duty equal to 33⅓ percent, of the value of the article. "

SILK (EXOISE).

5. "That on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, there shall be charged—
(a) on all artificial silk yarn, thread, straw, or waste manufactured in Great Britain or Northern Ireland an excise duty at the rate of two shillings and sixpence for every pound's weight; and
(b)in respect of every licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of artificial silk yarn, thread, straw, or waste in Great Britain or Northern Ireland an excise duty of twenty shillings

HOPS AND BEER.

6. "That during a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the following duties of customs shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or
Northern Ireland of the following goods, that is to say:—




£
s.
d.


Hops
the cwt.
4
0
0


Every extract, essence, or other similar preparation made from hops.
An amount equal to the duty on the quantity of hops which, in the opinion of the commissioners of Customs and Excise, has been used in the manu facture of the extract, essence, or preparation


Beer
In addition to the duties of customs now chargeable, a duty of tenpence for every 36 gallons where the worts were before fermentation of a specific gravity of 1, 055 degrees, and so in proportion for any difference in gravity. "

INCOME TAX.

CHARGE OF TAX.

7. "That—

(a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, at the rate of four shillings in the pound; and

(b) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedules A and B for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, shall be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five;

Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for the purposes of Income Tax; and

(c)The like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax so charged as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913. ".

SUPER-TAX.

8. "That—

(a) the additional duty of Income Tax (called Super-tax) shall be charged in respect of incomes which exceed £2, 000 as follows:—


In respect of the first 2, 000l. of the income
Nil


In respect of the excess over 2, 000l—



For every pound of the first 500l. of the excess
Ninepence.


For every pound of the next 500l. of the excess
One shilling


For every pound of the neat 1, 000l of the excess
One shilling and sixpence


For every pound of the next 1, 000l of the excess
Two shillings and threepence


For every pound of the next 1, 000l of the excess
Three shillings


For every pound of the next 2, 000l of the excess
Three shillings and sixpence


For every pound of the next 2, 000l of the excess
Four shillings


For every pound of the the next 5, 000l. of the excess
Four shillings and sixpence


For every pound of the next 5, 000l of the excess
Five shillings


For every pound of the next 10, 000l of the excess.
Five shillings and sixpence

(b) the like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Super-tax so charged as had effect with respect to the Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913. ".

ESTATE DUTY (ALTERATION OF SCALE).

9. That there shall be substituted for the rates of Estate Duty set out in the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1919,
rates in accordance with the following table:


Principal value of the estate.
Rate per cent of duty.



£


£



Exceeds
100
and does
not exceed
500
1


Exceeds
500
and does
not exceed
1,000
2


Exceeds
1,000
and does
not exceed
5,000
3


Exceeds
5,000
and does
not exceed
10,000
4


Exceeds
10,000
and does
not exceed
12,500
5


Exceeds
12,500
and does
not exceed
15,000
6


Exceeds
15,000
and does
not exceed
18,000
7


Exceeds
18,000
and does
not exceed
21,000
8


Exceeds
21,000
and does
not exceed
25,000
9


Exceeds
25,000
and does
not exceed
30,000
10


Exceeds
30,000
and does
not exceed
35,000
11


Exceeds
35,000
and does
not exceed
40,000
12


Exceeds
40,000
and does
not exceed
45,000
13


Exceeds
45,000
and does
not exceed
50,000
14


Exceeds
50,000
and does
not exceed
55,000
15


Exceeds
55,000
and does
not exceed
65,000
16


Exceeds
65,000
and does
not exceed
75,000
17


Exceeds
75,000
and does
not exceed
85,000
18


Exceeds
85,000
and does
not exceed
100,000
19


Exceeds
100,000
and does
not exceed
120,000
20


Exceeds
120,000
and does
not exceed
140,000
21


Exceeds
190,000
and does
not exceed
170,000
22


Exceeds
170,000
and does
not exceed
200,000
23


Exceeds
200,000
and does
not exceed
250,000
24


Exceeds
250,000,, 
and does
not exceed
325,000
25


Exceeds
325,000
and does
not exceed
400,000
26


Exceeds
400,000
and does
not exceed
500,000
27


Exceeds
500,000
and does
not exceed
750,000
28


Exceeds
750,000
and does
not exceed
1,000,000
29


Exceeds
1,000,000
and does
not exceed
1,250,000
30


Exceeds
1,250,000
and does
not exceed
1,500,000
32


Exceeds
1,500,000
and does
not exceed
2,000,000
35


Exceeds
2,000,000
and does
not exceed

40

SUCCESSION DUTY.

10. That for the purposes of Section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1894, and of Section fifty-eight of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, a succession shall be deemed to arise on the happening of the death by reason of which the successor, or any person in his right or on his behalf, becomes entitled in possession to the succession or to the receipt of the income or profits there of.".

LIABILITY OF DOMINION GOVERNMENTS TO TAXATION IN RESPECT OF TRADING OPERATIONS.

11. "That where a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland that Government shall, in respect of the trade or business and of all operations in connection therewith, all property occupied in Great Britain or Northern Ireland and all goods owned in Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purposes thereof and all income arising in connection therewith, be liable, in the same manner as in the like case any other person would be, to all taxation for the time being in force in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

For the purposes of this Resolution the expression 'His Majesty's Dominions' in-eludes any territory which is under His
Majesty's protection or in respect or which a mandate is being exercised by the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions. ".

SILK (CUSTOMS).

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Resolution be now adjourned."— [Commander Eyres Mansell..]

Resolution to be further considered upon Monday next.

SILK (EXCISE).

Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Resolution be now adjourned."ߝ[Commander Eyres Mansell.].

Resolution to be further considered upon Monday next.

HOPS AND BEER.

Sixth Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "four years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
Had it been possible, one would have preferred an Amendment to have been moved to delete the Resolution entirely, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement in the House—

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if hon Members opposite are agreeable, it would not be convenient that we should have the general discussion (as we had on he earlier Resolution) or the four Amendments dealing with this subject?

Mr. HAYDAY: I agree to that, with your consent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is another hon.

Colonel GRETTON: I am quite willing to accede to the request. I think I can get an assurance which may make it unnecessary for me to move my Amendment—in line 5, at end, to insert:

£
s.
d.


Hops grown in and imported from His Majesty's Dominions and Colonies Overseas … the cwt.
2
13
4

Mr. HAYDAY: I was remarking, that when I first heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make the announcement as to
this particular article that it was proposed to tax, and then when I read the White Paper, I became a little bewildered as to really what hops were. I wondered whether they were a flower, a plant, or a vegetable, but now that the Minister of Agriculture is here to reply on behalf of the Government, I come to the conclusion that it is something associated with the Ministry of Agriculture. On making further inquiries, I really believe I have heard the term hops before, and that a considerable proportion of this commodity is used in the manufacture of temperance drinks. I believe hops are used in the manufacture of hop bitters, Kop's Ale and a variety of se-called non-intoxicating or mineral drinks. Upon further inquiries—it has now become almost a matter of history—there was a time when a considerable amount of hops was used in the brewing of the national beverage called beer
The duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to impose is expected to realise in a full financial year £250, 000, and, working that out on the basis of £4 per cwt., I think that would represent something approaching the possible imports of hops into this country of 60, 000 cwt. I fear that the industry most likely to be hit by such a tax is already taxed out of proportion to any other taxable article or commodity in this country. Whether there is agreement as to the quality of the commodity or not, as to its uses or abuses, the fact remains that there is a very considerable portion of our population that engage in the consumption of that commodity, and, in the main, people who cannot afford the more expensive wines, which will in no way be affected by the tax it is proposed to impose upon hops. It may be said that the amount is so small, when spread over the whole of the industry, that it cannot possibly result in any increase of price to the consumer, but the greater danger is, that even if that be avoided, the new duty will result in an increase in the use of chemicals, which, I think there is general agreement, has from the pre-War period been introduced into the manufacture of beers as a substitute for hops, not to the benefit of the product, or to those who feel that they can indulge in slight consumption of that particular article. I would rather, if it were possible, that the inflow of hops should be somewhat facilitated, and that the
Ministry of Agriculture, if the main purpose is to help in the development of our home-producing community, should have some fixed standard of purity in the manufacture of beer, in order that a greater quantity of hops should be introduced into the general manufacture of that commodity
I find that the amount of hops used for the year ending September, 1924, in this country was 350, 428 cwts. The amount of preparations of hops used was 54 cwts., and the amount of hop substitutes used was 44 cwts. Even assuming that those engaged in the business, being called upon to meet an extra charge of £80 per ton on imported hops, decided not to increase the price, they might decide to increase the use of hop substitutes, thereby passing on an inferior product to the consumer at its present price, and indirectly defeating what no doubt is the sole object of the Chancellor, namely, to obtain the revenue of £250, 000 which he considers can be realised from this duty in a full year. No provision is made for the application of the duty to hop substitutes, and this in itself would lead the users of hops to clear themselves of any possible extra charge by passing on an inferior article to the consumer, who already pays more than he should pay towards the taxation of this country for a very indifferent article. In the days when hops formed one of the main ingredients of hop bitters, Kop's Ale, and the ordinary beer, it was necessary to have at the head of a brewery department a man who was expert in brewing. Now I am given to understand that the chief qualification for this post is not a knowledge of brewing as in pre-War days, but a knowledge of chemistry. It is generally a skilled chemist who is at the head of such a department nowadays, and chemistry plays a larger part in the manufacture of beer than the knowledge of an expert brewer as to the use of wholesome products grown in this or other countries
There is another point on which I should like to ask either the Minister of Agriculture or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an assurance. Unless I am wrongly informed, British brewers have already contracted abroad for over 102,000 cwts. of hops, which would represent the supply for a year and eight months according to the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One would like to know whether these con-
tracts made ahead are going to be taxed under the present proposals. I they are, it will readily be seen that an injustice is inflicted upon those who have already entered into contracts, and this cannot in any way help to promote a larger growth of hops in this country. That matter cannot in any way be affected by the contracts already placed. One would also like to know—though perhaps this matter arises more directly on the Amendment put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton—whether any preference is to given to our Dominions and Colonies in this matter. I understand that the Dominions exported to this country 6,446 cwts. during the past seven months. If they are to come under the general category of this duty, what becomes of all the talk we have heard about Empire understanding and Empire preferences? I only mention that point by the way, in case it might be overlooked
There is one other point. Surely it cannot be that the Minister of Agriculture has had representations made to him by the hop growers of this country asking that this duty should be placed on the imported article in order that they might produce larger quantities of hops. If a duty is placed on an article for any purpose it is to make it difficult for that article to enter into this country against the interests of home producers, but what was the position of the Government in this matter in 1923? Then they set out deliberately to restrict the production of hops in this country, and they restricted by control the hop growers of this country to producing 71 per cent. of their average production for the years 1920-22. If such restrictions were then placed on hop-growing there can surely be no argument now that we want 1.) enlarge the area of the hop fields of this country, and for that purpose desire to make the import of foreign hops difficult. The fact remains that in 1910 there were 32, 886 acres of hop-growing territory in this country, and in 1922 there were 26, 452 acres. Yet notwithstanding that fact, the Government of the day in 1923 restricted the production of hops in way I have stated
I could understand this proposal if the Government said: We have tried to develop the industry, we have tried
to give it encouragement and we have tried to give facilities for larger areas of land being brought into cultivation for hop growing. But they restricted the production of hops and now they say: While we restrict you to 71 per cent. of the product for 1920-1702, at the same time we are going to make it difficult for hops to be imported into this country from other countries, and if they come in they must pay £4 per hundredweight. Between the two courses the consumer is going to be the greatest sufferer. If you restrict production in your own country and restrict the available quantity by keeping foreign imports out, it is bound to react upon the trade and cause the trade to fall back on the further use of substitutes. Soon beer will be quite devoid of its old-time quality. We shall- find chemical laboratories set up here and there in the place of breweries, and a man who desires a drink of beer will be required to take a phial of concentrated essence to some place where there is a free flowing water supply and take his glass of beer in much the same manner as he would take a seidlitz powder. That seems to me the direction in which we are travelling, because I am certainly one of those who would openly advocate a purer supply of beer. I therefore move, in order that we shall have a full test of the result of these duties, that they should be limited to one year instead of four years, and I think the Minister ought to agree to this Amendment, because it is quite a new duty. I do not know that a duty of this character has ever been imposed before in this House, and in order that we might see the full justification of it and what the effect may be on the commodity offered for sale, and on the British hop-growers, I think the Amendment should be carried.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment
I am glad to know, after the huge efforts that some hon. Members have been making this evening to show that certain duties were protective, that there is no quest; on in regard to this particular duty, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself bar said that it is a purely protective duty. He said in his Budget speech:
The Silk Duty finds at its side 5, small companion which has reached me from the Ministry of Agriculture in the shape
of a duty on hops. It is very small, but very shocking; it is nakedly protective. "— [OFFICIAL Respond, 24th April, 1925; col. 67, Vol. 183.]
May I add my own opinion? To me, it is a pure, unadulterated, full-blooded, blue-blooded Protection Duty. All my life I have hated the very name of Protection. It was my great good fortune to live with a man for a large number of years who knew something of Protection at work, and in the "hungry forties" he remembered that he could not have bread. Ever since those days I have hated Protection. Some think that this commodity is not a food, but others hold an opinion distinctly that it is a food. We may, I think, agree that it is on the border line, and I would suggest that it is too near food for the present Ministry to undertake to tax it. Personally, I would say that for no consideration should we tax the food of the people. Further, I urge that this tax is wholly unnecessary. Already you have in your hands the control of hops, both home-brewed and imported, and ample powers to deal with them. That being the case, the only thing that can arise out of this tax, and the only thing that the Chancellor expects will arise, is an increase in the price of the commodity, so that people will have more to pay, and I do not think that the people will care for that. The time, I believe, will shortly come when you will be asked to reduce the price of beer, which is, as the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day) has said, taxed out of all proportion as compared with any other article in the country.
When we remember that the tax on beer to-day is between nine and 10 times as high as it was before the War, surely the greatest prohibitionist we have in the House ought to be at least satisfied with that position, and I urge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on these foundations, has chosen the very worst subject that ho could take for increased taxation, and it is wholly unnecessary. We know only too well who will pay. The man who takes a glass of beer in the end is going to pay, and everybody here, I think, will agree with me that no commercial concern is run at a loss. They are not institutions for philanthropy, but for getting profits, and here I would incidentally state that I can speak for nine or 10 breweries which
are run on co-operative lines, and owned by the workers of this country. They buy hops, and have ever bought the home production, and I am wondering how, with 50 per cent. duty—for I understand that that is what it means, the price of a cwt. of hops at present being about £8, to which a £4 tax is to be added—these small concerns will compete in the market with the great brewing interests of this country. We are again, I am afraid, going to get the backwash given to us. Therefore, I cannot think that this tax should be imposed.
I always look at the price of beer and the tax on beer as the workers' Income Tax. A worker only has the surplus from his wages that can be spared from his home. His home gets the first consideration. Food and the clothing that are necessary there come first, and with what little remains the man, the father or grown-up son, takes a glass of beer. You are going to tax that surplus by such Resolutions as this, and I want to remind you that other people who pay Income Tax have not had their tax increased under the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, hut have had their Income Tax very much reduced indeed. Altogether this is a Budget that has increased in every respect the payments of the workers to give to the friends of the Chancellor some reduction in taxation, which they can well afford to pay, as compared with the workers of this country. In the mining industry, to which I belong, an;industry where men are trying to exist on wages ranging from 30s. to 35s. a week, or at the most £2, to expect them to pay further taxation in any shape or form is, to me, imposing cruelty upon them. Rather should they have the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rather should he have said: Whatever I can gain from taxation, it shall not come from you, but I will put it into your industry, so as to help you. I do not know that I need say more. If this tax had been imposed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think that we should have heard something from the other side of the House as to the taxation of the workers. We should have heard that rolling from the benches opposite. To-day, however, the boot is on the other foot. It is because that from your own Chancellor of the Exchequer that this proposal has come that no word do I expect to hear against it.

Mr. E. WOOD: My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will no doubt be prepared to answer the various financial points that may be raised in this discussion at a later stage of the Debate, but I thought it would be for the convenience, of the House if I intervened to say a word or two in reply to the case that the hon. Gentlemen have advanced. I do so because it more specifically appeals to me as responsible for the relation of this proposal to the agricultural policy involved. Hon. Members will allow me to say that they have presented their case to the House, as indeed might have been expected, with great sincerity and great fairness, and although I do not, of course, agree with their opinions I would be the first to recognise that their case is one entitled to very full and fair consideration. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last will perhaps allow me to say that in one respect he fell into a great error. He said that if the proposal to impose a duty on imported hops has been proposed by the Government of his friends, it would have excited opposition from hon. Friends of my own sitting on this side of the House. I would, however, point,, at that that. matter has been consistently pressed upon the attention, not only of the Minister of Agriculture who preceeded me, but Ministers who occupied this office., even earlier.
The discovery was made by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject that hops very largely entered into the composition of a beverage of which I hope he, no less than I, is fond—beer. He also expressed great sympathy for pure or purer beer. In that I also agree with him. I venture to associate myself with what he said to the effect that the more pure you get your beer the more beer you can safely drink. I think those sentiments will even win the general concurrence of the hon. Member who sits for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). The hon. Member was very much concerned about the possible effect of this duty on the use of hop substitutes. I am not disposed, nor, indeed—if I may frankly confess it—am I competent to discuss in detail the question of hop substitutes; but I want to put to the House one important figure as to what would be the estimated effect of this duty on hops, either on the price of beer or on the price of hops substitutes. We have been informed most exactly as to what the imposition of the
duty on a barrel of beer, and as translated from a barrel to a pint of beer, would be. It really is a fractional amount. Hon. Members opposite know it perfectly well, so that I think I need hardly quote the figure: but if they choose to work it out, the best actual computation that can be made, even if the whole duty was thrown on to the pint of beer, would be something like one 29th or 30th of a penny. That is what the mathematicians would call an unworkable fraction.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: But they will put a halfpenny on!.

Mr. WOOD: I hope that hon. Members opposite will be reassured at least on that point. But I want, if I may, to ask hon. Members to remember what has been the history of this business and to look at it upon slightly broader lines. The whole object of the Government in the last seven years has been to re-establish the British hop grower and the British hop industry; that industry, indeed, has a pretty strong moral claim upon the sympathy of this House. During the War the hop growers were compelled to grub up half their plantations, for which they received not one single penny in compensation, whereas the ordinary farmer, as is well known, received compensation for turning his grass land into arable land. That has involved the hop growers obviously in a very large loss, and it was with the object of re-establishing the growth of British hops—an object, let me point out, that was not less important to the consumers of beer than to the hop growers themselves—it was with the object of re-establishing the industry that the War period, lop control was continued for a period of five years. It expires next August. The object was to give to the grower the chance of se-establishing his plantations within that time. I have no doubt that. the process would have been, or might have been, satisfactorily accomplished if it had not been for two things. The heavy increase of the Beer Duty, which has enormously diminished the consumption of beer, and this, again, has coincided with a very serious depression in trade. The position that resulted has had serious consequences for those for whom I more particularly speak, for they were farther affected by an immense bumper crop of British hops produced last year
There is, as hon. Members are aware, a considerable surplus of these hops still unabsorbed. Nay more, I put it to hon. Members in all parts of the House who wish well to the position of the British hop grower, as to what that position is likely to be on the termination of control in August. They have suffered as I have described, and unless the Government do something they will find themselves faced not only with a large surplus of hops from last year due to fortuitous circumstances and restrictions, to some of which I have referred, but also with a great flood of foreign imports which have been already, so to speak, sitting at the door and watching for when the key shall turn the door, and open it, and remove control, then they would be ready to come in and complete the destruction already threatened by the over-production of last year. That was obviously an impossible position to contemplate, and one that would not have been to the interest either of brewers or of consumers, because if British hop growers are killed, crushed out, it is obvious you would get a shortage of hops. That is not good for the brewers, and in sc. far as hop prices reflect themselves in the price of beer, it is not good for the consumers. Therefore, the Government decided that something must be done
There were two alternatives. One was to continue control. The bon. Member who spoke last seemed to be, if I understood him correctly, unaware that control was to terminate in August. It would be possible to continue that control, that is, to continue a system of not only naked, but high, Protection. You may call this proposal Protection if you will, I do not quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's definition, but I do say that it is nothing like so protective as the rigid limitation of imports and the rigid fixation of price under which the hop industry has been carried on for the last few years. Therefore it comes to this, that by this temporary duty we propose to give a lesser degree of protection to British growers than they have enjoyed under hop control, and, subject to that lesser degree of protection, we propose to replace a restricted market in hops by a free market. Subject to this duty, the -market for hops will be entirely free, instead of being, as it has been during the last few years, and is at the present time, a restrictive market, and a very rigidly controlled one.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, I think, that this was a perfectly new duty, and one unknown to this House. That is not so. There was a duty on hops for something like 150 years, from the year 1711 to 1862. Not only was the duty in existence for 150 years, but 100 years ago it was as high as £8 11s. per cwt., which shows with what modesty we return to the examples. of our forefathers
I hope, in view of the explanation I have endeavoured to give to the House, they will not insist on pressing this Amendment to a Division. All this Amendment would do would be to. stultify the policy which the Government recommend. I am quite satisfied that any hon. Member opposite who applied his mind impartially and with knowledge to this question, and who was able to see the question from the point of view of the hop growers as well as from the general point of view of the nation, could come to no other conclusion than that it, would be impossible to allow control to lapse without taking some steps to safeguard hop growers against the result of the expiration of control if no policy had been superadded. I am further satisfied they would come to the conclusion that a temporary duty and a moderate, duty was the least inconvenient way of affording hop growers that protection to which, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of other hon. Members, they are most richly entitled.

Mr. HAYDAY: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to clear up two points—the point raised as to contracts already entered into by British brewers for upplies of foreign hops, and the further point as to whether these is any easement proposal for Colonial hops.

Mr. WOOD: I apologise to the hon. Member. I had a note of it, but I overlooked it. This proposal will involve preference to imported Dominion hops, and the duty will apply to existing contracts. Therefore, as regards Imperial Preference, it does not imply, as I think he was inclined to suggest, any bleach of faith on the part of the Treasury.

Colonel GRETTON: I think a few remarks are desirable from one who is well acquainted with the brewing trade and can speak on this subject with knowledge—on one side of the question, at any
rate. The last thing the brewer wants to do in these times is to put up the price of his beer to the customer, and so far from this proposal involving any risk of that kind, it is really a safeguard, as I think I can show in the few remarks I shall make subsequently, that the price of beer will not be raised. The extra charge on foreign hops involved by this duty represents about 1/28th of a penny per pint of beer as sold in this country.

Mr. HAYDAY: What about the gravity 7.

Colonel GRETTON: This has nothing to do with the gravity, nothing whatever. The conditions under control are very difficult indeed. The acreage of hops had been reduced in the War from some 30, 000 acres to 16, 500 acres, and the whole industry of hop-growing was impaired. it certainly was not in the interests of consumers of beer here or elsewhere that they should not have English hops in their beer, and the brewers therefore took the view that every effort ought to be made to increase the acreage of English hops. They agreed, not too wisely I think, that at the end of War control it should be continued for another five years, and that period comes to an end at the end of August of this year
I do not know whether hon. Members realise what control means. It means this, that, by statute the Controller, and the Advisory Committee which was set up purchase the whole of the English crop which is purchasable. The Advisory Committee consists of representatives of the hop growers, factors, who are the salesmen of the hop growers, hop merchants, who are intermediaries, and the brewers. This Advisory Committee has every year gone into the whole matter of the cost of cultivation of hops, the condition of the season, and the average production of hops per acre, and on that they have fixed a price which they call the standard price. To that they have added 20 per cent, as a profit for the grower, and the brewer, when he has bought the hops from control, has also had to pay control charges, which have come down somewhat lately —I think they are only 5s. this year, but were as high as at one time—and he has also had to pay the merchants' com-
mission and the factors' commission, very heavy charges. The hop control was able to control the trade because the Controller had power to withhold the importation of foreign hops until the English crop was sold and get foreign hops to make up the balance
Hon. Members on this subject have been talking from the point of view of the high altitude and lofty, conscientious attitude of Free Traders. Having accepted the control as satisfactory they must put their principles on one side The brewers have found great difficulty in conducting their business under this system of control. Hop growers have not increased the acreage necessary to produce a hop crop equal to that which was the average before the War. Roughly speaking, they produce two-thirds or three-fourths of the hops required in a normal year in this country and no more. The hop crop is subject to the inclemency of the season, and the whole of it may he very much damaged, and frequently hops are growth which ought not to he picked and are not suitable for brewing
One of the results will be that control will be more lenient as to what hops are saleable or not. In the past brewers have had to take hops of a much lower grade. Control has had another influence on hop growing. It is perfectly natural that there should have been a certain tendency amongst hop growers to take less care in the marketing of their hops because they have got to a much lower standard than was the case before the War. The ending of control from the point of view of the consumer will tend somewhat to improve the quality of the hops put in beer as compared with the quality which was produced during the War under great difficulties, and which has not been entirely rectified since
9.0 P.M.
What is the nature of the control? It is impossible to continue to conduct business under such conditions. The brewing trade have agreed, because they fully recognise that the public interest is involved, to a duty of per cwt. on foreign hops for the next four years. After that time the whole question is to be examined on its merits according to the position which arises at that time and the whole matter will be open for discussion. As regards the hops from the Dominions and our
Colonies overseas the supply to this country is now very limited. The quantity brought in last year from the Dominions and the Colonies amounted to about 10, 000 cwts. I understand that under the agreement which has been come to that the usual preference of one-third of the reduction on the Import Duty will be charged on the hops from the Dominions overseas. Hon. Members have talked about the hop substitutes which are used in beer, but what are the facts of the case? There is no industry that is more inspected arid supervised than the brewing trade. All the material put into beer in the course of brewing has to be recorded. Excise officers watch all that goes on and they know very well whether malt or sugar or hops substitutes are used in any particular brewing. You will find in the annual returns of brewing the records of their observation laid down for the use of any hon. Member who imagines that hop substitutes are used in any large quantities. I am sure that they will find that hop substitutes are scarcely used at all. It has been suggested that cheap substitutes for hops can be used with advantage, but brewers do not agree with that, and in point of fact those substitutes are not used, and hon. Members who make this statement have not really taken the trouble to examine public records in this matter which are available to everyone who desire to look into this question
I believe it is in the interest of the consumers of beer that there should be a prosperous hop industry in this country producing good hops to be used for the brewing of English beer. It is for that—to encourage and maintain that supply of hops—that the English brewers have agreed to this duty. One hon. Member said that brewers are traders. That is true, and if it had not been absolutely necessary as a matter of public policy and in the interests of all concerned that this charge should be made, it would not have been agreed by the brewers. May I say to the hop growers that I believe this duty will afford them the protection which they require. I believe a lower duty would have sufficed and would have given a great advantage to the English hop grower, quality being equal. This proposal is now made for four years. It may be the right amount or it may be
wrong, but it can be fairly judged on the experience of four years. As far as I am concerned, and I can speak for English brewers, we desire to support the English hop industry and even to make sacrifices to ensure that end. We recognise their difficulties and we want them to produce the best hops they can for the making of English beer.

Mr. HARRIS: One cannot help regretting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to take part in the Debate, because it would have been interesting to hear his version of this tax. An hour or so ago we heard a very eloquent speech from him, in which, apparently, he nailed his colours to the mast as an unrependant Free Trader. He assured the House that he only departed, in the case of the McKenna Duties, from the pure unadulterated doctrine. of Free Trade, because those duties were old duties which had been accepted for the last 10 years, and did not introduce any new principle. Here we have, undoubtedly, Protection naked and u n-ashamed. The case for it might very properly and naturally have been put, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but by the Minister of Agriculture. There is no pretence here of revenue; it is put on as a purely protective tax, to protect a particular favoured industry in order to secure for it better prices. That is adistinct and definite departure in policy
I suppose it would be considered ate impertinence if I were to suggest that, in the case of an article of this kind, it was a departure from the pledge of the Prime Minister. I do not know by which pledge it could properly be covered. The Prime Minister's first pledge was that there should be no tax on food, or, I assume, raw material, and I have always been led to understand—perhaps some of the experts on beer will be able to tell me if I am right—that beer was a food. I have often heard from Members opposite that there was no more nourishing, sustaining or necessary drink for the people than the great national drink. I have rather an idea, therefore, that beer might well be classified as coming within the category of the pledge of the Prime Minister as to taxes on food. Even if it is not a food, it is certainly a raw material, and we were always assured, even in the days when the Prime Minister
came out in favour of Protection, at the Election before last, he was not prepared to tax raw materials.
Here we have an article singled out for special favour, not for one year in the ordinary revenue way, but for four years. This Government, assuming that its life is going to extend for four years, has guaranteed to the hop growers this form of Protection. It is easy to put a tax on, when the Government have a well-drilled majority prepared to follow them into the Lobby. It can be done at half-past eleven at night in a nearly empty House, when Members are tired and exhausted after a long discussion. But it is one thing to put a tax on, and another thing to take a tax off. Immediately you create vested interests, and I can imagine, in four years' time, hop growers coming down in procession to protest against an unfair attack on a well-established old industry. This is an old tax. I was very interested to hear the date. I knew it was an old tax, but I did not realise that it had been on for so many years. It was on from 1711 to 1862, when it was swept away as a result of the policy started by Sir Robert Peel, and successfully followed by Mr. Gladstone
I happen to have had, at one time in my political life, some association with the county of Kent, and I once had the courage and temerity to contest the seat in a hop-growing constituency. It was an interesting experience. I remember that the hop growers were all in favour of Free Trade. They thought it was a very wrong thing to tax corn, or any other article of food, but all were in favour of a tax on hops. When I went a few miles out of that district, and came to a corn-growing country, there the corn growers were all in favour of Free Trade in hops, but in favour of a tax on corn. On what ground, on what justification, can you single out one particular section, and, I venture to say, the most prosperous section, of agriculture for special favour? Those landowners and tenant farmers who happen to be on land suitable for hop growing are in a specially satisfactory position. I do not think there is much doubt that during the last 30 or 40 years more money has been made out of hops than out of any other form of agriculture in the country
There is no more profitable crop to the, producer, even under Free Trade con-
ditions, than hops. Where a man has the capital and suitable land, I have been told by experts that it is a very profitable investment. Of course, it is speculative. There are good years and bad years; there are times when, from various causes, the hops are destroyed, it may be by the ravages of the aphis, or it may be by high winds or wet weather. On the other hand, it may be that in another year, when hops are plentiful and the crops are good, prices are low, and that year, again, is not favourable to the hop grower. But I have been told by numerous experts that one good year in seven, or at any rate one good year in four or five, will more than compensate the hope grower for his ups and downs of prices and the uncertainties of the crop. It is a speculative crop, but a most profitable one, and there is no reason why hop growers should be singled out, of all the farmers in England; of all the producers of food in our land, for special favour and attention. Moreover, I cannot see, once this policy is started, how it will be possible to say to the fruit growers of Kent or other parts of the country, who produce apples, pears or strawberries—which, again, are a very speculative crop—that hops are to be protected while they are to be refused the benefits of secure prices and freedom from foreign competition
This is the beginning of a direct policy of going towards Protection. It cannot be avoided. It is much better to be frank about the matter and tell the nation that you are going to take every opportunity to impose, by one means or another, Protective tariffs as the settled policy of the party. We are told that this will not affect prices. That may be true, but no doubt the brewers have a very large margin of profit. If we study the dividends declared by various brewing companies, and consider the prices that they get, no doubt they have a good margin to play with, and a small tax on sugar, or a little extra on hops, will not make very much difference. to their profits, and they can easily give a certain amount away. But I am not quite satisfied that arguments and statements which rightly apply to such excellent beverages as Bass and Guinness apply equally to the ordinary pale ale or swipes which is delivered to the workman across the counter of a tied house as an alleged drink called beer. Although the quality of these great
beverages of world-wide reputation may not, perhaps, be altered, I have some suspicion that either the quality will go down or that it will be given as a reason for increasing the price, or that, when the price of hops goes up, somehow or other they will disappear and some substitute will take their place
I am very much interested, also, about the preference. It is said that the Dominions must have a market for their goods, that it is necessary in order to maintain the loyalty of the Empire to keep the existing preference, in fact that they should have a preference for their products. Now we have the answer. The answer is a tax on Imperial grown hops. Canadian and Australian hops are to he taxed. It is true that the tax is to be higher on hops from foreign countries. They are not to be allowed to come in free on the same terms as hops produced in our own country. That is a very curious answer to the Economic Conference. I am wondering whaler our representatives at the Economic Conference informed the Canadian and the Australian grower that his hops in future were to be taxed, while the English grower was to be allowed to sell his free without any taxation. It is an interesting comment on the Imperial policy. It shows how dangerous it is to tamper with taxation as a. means of tying Omer the Imperial bond
But I want to come down to the fundamental policy. This is art infringement of Free Trade. Once you start giving protection to one section of the community, the pressure from all the other sections is difficult to meet, and you will never get agriculture on its legs and make it prosperous unless you leave all these ideas of artificial protection alone, put our farmer on the same terms and give him the same opportunities with farmers in other parts of the Empire. Relieve him from rating, give him security of tenure, let him feel that he can cultivate his land on exactly the same terms as the:farmers in Australia., Canada and New Zealand, have the same system of land tenure, rating and taxation, and we can give away all these artificial experiments in tariffs and get our agriculture on a sound, satisfactory basis. I am inclined to think that sooner or later these taxes on hops will lead to higher prices, a great part of which will go into
the pockets of the landlords in increased rents. There is no security against that. For that reason, and because it would infringe the sound principles of Free Trade, I shall be prepared to go to a Division and vote against it.

Major WHELER: I wish to say one or two words as one. who made his first remarks on an Amendment to the Address in 1910 regretting that the Government of the day did not take some steps to pro. teet the hop industry and as one who has taken some part in growing hops. The Minister of Agriculture has put the case for the hop grower very clearly, but I should like to say a word to the hon. Member opposite. He said money had been made in hops. I do not deny that it has been made by some people, but a the same time there has been a great deal of money lost in hops. A great many men have become practically bankrupt through hops. There is no industry in agriculture which is more expensive per acre per year than that of hop growing. In the district in Kent from which I come, to cultivate an acre of hops used to cost £60 a year. With the increased price of everything, that has gone up to as high as £l80 per acre per year. If you have even a few acres of hops, you can realise what that means. Seventy-five per cent.;:)f that money goes in wages to those who are able to undertake work which is pleasant and congenial (especially for women workers), and brings to them a result which is of the utmost use. That is a point which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment has never touched upon the labour side of the question. It provides a source of income for the mother and the whole family. In parts of the county that work has been taken away because of the difficulties of hop growing. The ease of this industry has been a question for special treatment, and it has been before the House ever since I have been here. We have never hesitated to say that this was an industry, for which the fact that the grower has to spend so ranch money per acre if he is going to cultivate his crop properly, a special type of Protection I not afraid of the word—is necessary from any other industry. and if it does not get it you are going to see the acreage of hops decrease very greatly. If the industry dis-
appears through foreign competition, it will be easy for the foreigner to put up the price to what he likes, and the price of beer must go up
I want to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing forward this duty. I am certain it will do an enormous amount of good to those districts where the hop is grown. It will encourage people to remain in those districts and it will give more employment at times when certain numbers of our agricultural people cannot find it. In addition, it keeps the land in a very high state of cultivation and you get the maximum return therefore from the soil. Those are the reasons for which I support the proposal. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment did not seem to realise that to keep a duty on for one year would be futile. To imagine that if hops are put in to-day you will get the full benefit to-morrow only shows ignorance of the subject. The hop garden requires three years of careful attention before you can hope to get the full crop or yield from the plant and all that time you have your expenses going on and it has to have a laige amount -4 manual labour, manures and other things. It is a crop which wants protection in the interest of the consumer. While welcoming the preference, I would point out as, far as that British Colombia is concerned the hops there are ail very close to the border. I only hope that in dealing with this preferential question the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that the hops that come in from this Dominion especially are marked in such a way that it will not be possible for any United States' hops to be slipped over the border and brought in under false pretences as Canadian hops.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: This question frequently crops up on the Budget, and protests are brought forward from this side against a tax upon what in some quarters is described as a commodity. If it can be shown that this is really a legitimate commodity, those Gentlemen are thoroughly warranted in the fullest protest, because on that basis it is the most iniquitous taxation imposed in this country. The heavy taxation is imposed very largely because it is intended to act as a restriction upon those who are the consumers. It is actually inculcated
upon the Conservative party, largely through the Liberal party—and the Labour party have also largely gone in the same direction—that we ought to make the taxation as heavy as possible from what is termed the temperance point of view. That is argued on the score of endeavouring to protect those who would otherwise he liable to go more readily astray by excessive consumption of liquor We have had the liquor trade appealing, as usual, very strongly about the necessity of obtaining reduction. In Scotland the retail dealers, as usual wanted to get reduction. These appeals have been put through, but on this occasion pressure has not been so strong, or perhaps the Government have been more firm in their refusal. Yesterday the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) actually argued that the more taxation we put on any commodity the more profit was made out of it. How does that coincide with the liquor trade appealing to get a reduction and maintaining that some of them are not able to get a living out of it? As a matter of fact, they do not get a living out of it. They are constantly dying. They are dying more rapidly in the liquor business, even though many are abstainers, through failure to secure the average longevity of the country
On this taxation basis the Seconder of the Amendment was arguing that the first thing which the consumer has to do is to consider his home. From the Labour point of view what surprises me is that those who speak for such an Amendment have not come to realise that this is the poorest industry making a demand on the market for employment, the poorest industry in the provision of wages, the most despicable show in that respect that any Labour man could support. But here we had the remarkable development of some nine or 10 breweries operated by the workmen. Perhaps it is in preparation for the revolution, a sort of preparatory propaganda., because I admit, to conduct a brewery, turn out the product, and, especially, consume it, you are guaranteed to have revolution in a short time, a revolution that happens from the individual point of view and through which the police are called in to protect us in regard to law and order
If you take the matter in regard to what it means to the Exchequer, it is a
dead loss from every point of view. You cannot have Free Trade with this business because it would not be possible for us to have even an apology for civilisation on those conditions. You snake a deal with the trade. The big breweries and the liquor trusts generally do not trouble you particularly about your taxation. l t is a walkover as far as they are concerned. It is the poor tied-house publican and the rank and file who are anxious about it. The trade gets a deal, and it becomes with every Government a renewal of a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. You can get it in every part of the country. You are talking about the question of endeavouring to improve your industry. You have here a sink into which you are pouring money. You put some part into your Exchequer, and yon; are actually accelerating unemployment. or, I should say, strangely enough, putting it out on education, and at the same time for the public house in the opposite direction. All the education that ever you give them from a scriptural, theological or secular point of view is withered up completely by the guarantee of this particular institution, which cannot possibly be conducted on the face of God's earth by man or woman under any conditions you like without producing these nefarious results.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Mr. James Hope): I mount help thinking the hon. Member is thinking now about the general question of the Excise Duty upon beer, and this is a Customs Duty on hops we are discussing.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: What I am dealing with is the fact that those who have been advocating this particular Amendment are pleading on the score that it is an injustice to impose heavy taxation upon it. I am therefore entitled to insist that it is by this contract, by this covenant that we are making, it is the toll money in which you make the contract and allow by a licensing system operations to proceed throughout, the country that you are having to deal with in every court of justice and every sphere of life. You cannot deal with this question of taxation without dealing with what it involves as an industry. You are speaking of it as an industry. I say, speaking of it from that standpoint. The Minister for Agriculture told us, that the tax means one twenty-ninth of a penny on the
pint of beer. The man would not trouble whether it was 29 pence, let alone one twenty-ninth of a penny. Put on any tax you like; this is guaranteed to secure its customer who becomes the victim and thus provides the toll. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who has had to deal with this question is confronting a matter of Protection in a sense he has never yet tackled. Nor have the Liberal benches. I heard recently there was a possibility of them tackling it. None of us should be accepting or endorsing or agreeing in any way whatever to the permission of toll money on a thing that unquestionably involves the most severe barrier, the heaviest barricade we can have to face dealing with unemployment in any other question in the country. I submit that as a matter of protest if it was nothing else, the Labour party cannot face this. Nor can the Conservative party. Nor have the Liberal party done it yet. It goes through every year.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member mistakes the issue. This has not gone through every year. It has not gone through since 1862. It is a new issue. It is that there should be a Customs duty on hops; it is not the general taxation of beer.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It involves taxation in so far as the hops may be used in the production of beer. I have heard speaker after speaker, and I am sure you, Sir, have heard them as well, dealing with the suggestion of taxation as applicable to beer and as stated in the particular Resolution now before the House. I am dealing with it on that score, and I submit I am perfectly in order. Our duty in this matter is not a question of simply protesting on a degree of taxation it is rather a question of whether or not we should concede a right, and in the Budget we always concede a right. Every year we are renewing that licence to operate on those lines.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order !.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Well, I have accomplished all I wanted.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: I do not want to express any surprise at the speech which has just been delivered, but I have been a good deal surprised, as one
who has seen something of the working of the present system, by the speeches that have been delivered by hon. Members belonging to both parties opposite, who profess to advocate the principles of Free Trade. The change from the present system of hop control to a mere Customs Duty is an immense advance in the direction of Free Trade. Compared with the present system, a mere Custom's Duty of £4 per cwt. is absolutely bald and insignificant. The present system is not merely one of Protection but of Prohibition. I have here a copy of the Order under which the present Hop Controller draws his powers. That Order says:
 No person shall be permitted either on his own behalf, or on behalf of any other person, to buy, sell, or agree or offer to buy or sell, any hops, whether imported or home-grown. 
Under that Order of the 3rd January, 1919, the present Hop Controller was appointed, and those powers were conferred upon him. These powers make him about the most absolute monarch in Europe. He had the power to fix every price. with regard to this article, and to exercise the power of prohibiting any hops whatever from coming into the country. That is the strongest protective measure to which this country has ever been a party. It is rather interesting to find that this Order appointing the Hop Controller is signed R. Clynes, and was introduced under the auspices of the respected leader of hon. Members opposite, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Member give the date?

Sir R. SANDERS: The 3rd January, 1919. This was almost the first thing that was done by the new Government which followed the Election. after the War was over.

Mr. LANSBURY: Mr. Clynes was nob a member of that Government.

Sir R. SANDERS: It was almost the last thing that was done by the right hon. Member before he left office. It is signed the 3rd January, 1919. There you have the Leader of the House of Commons when the Labour Government was in office, and the present leader of the Liberal party in this House, both concurring in this the strongest measure of Protection that has ever been introduced by a British Govern-
ment. We now propose to do away with that system. Having seen something of the work of the Hop Controller, I want to take this opportunity of bearing testimony to the ability and the tact with which he carried out what was certainly an exceedingly difficult office, not without disagreement, but with a minimum of friction. It. is also highly to his credit that he must have been a gentleman of some humour, because in the intervals of carrying out the principles of the most Protectionist policy this country has ever seen, he indulged in the recreation of standing as Liberal candidate for a Kent constituency
That was the system under which we have been working ever since the War, and under which we are working at the present time. The Government propose to abolish that system. Supposing it was to abolish that system, and go straight in for Free Trade in hops, I think anyone who has looked into the matter with any knowledge will say that the hop industry in this country would go under altogether. It is eminently for the benefit of the country that that industry should be continued. The brewers are very anxious to keep the hop industry going, and they have showed their anxiety to do so by being perfectly willing to pay whatever extra price may result from this Import Duty. The hop industry is one which it is to the benefit of agriculture and to the country generally to keep going, because it employs more men per acre than any other form of agriculture. It is not an industry that we can afford to sacrifice at the present time.-Unless we either keep control going or put on an Import Duty—and it could not be lower than the one proposed to he effective—the hop industry will go under. No one will suffer by this duty being imposed. The duty will fall upon the brewers. who have expressed their readiness to pay. It is one of those proposals which can only be opposed by Free Trailers who have gone absolutely mad about Free Trade.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: One wonders how it was that the hop industry did not go to the dogs in the days before the War. The Minister of Agriculture told us that from 1862 down to the beginning of the War, and down to the commencement of control in 1919, there was no protection in the hop industry at all. in 1914 there
were no. fewer than 35, 000 acres under hops. How is it that the hop industry did not become defunct when no protection was given to that industry in the days before the War. The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Grettan) supplied the most suitable argument that could be advanced against this protection of the hop industry. He said, as a brewer, that brewers would not complain about. this protection for four years. He said that S4 was only a small amount, compared with the present cost of beer, and he felt that £3 or £2 per cwt. duty would he sufficient.

Colonel GRETTON: I must ask the hon. Member to correct that statement. He has misunderstood what I said. I think what I said was that was a very full amount, and that some lesser amount might suffice.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should be sorry deliberately to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Member, but he has repeated in part the statement to which I refer, namely. that he feels that £4 is too much.

Colonel GRETTON: I did not say that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: And that they could very well manage on £3, or even less. To-morrow we can see exactly what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. The Minister of Agriculture gives the most suitable argument why Protection should not be corrtinued in this industry. He told us that last year we had a bumper crop. The result was that all the hops were not sold. The surplus is waiting over for disposal this year, and unless some protection is given to this small industry, not only will it be severely hit, but the chances are that a great deal of acreage will go out of cultivation. What we have to look at is this. Prior to the War some 35, 000 acres were under hops when the consumption of beer was in the region of 36, 000. 000 barrels. To-day we have moved from the War 15, 000 acres to 25, 000 acres, which last gave us a surplus on an annual consumption of beer which at the moment is in tip:, region of 26, 000, 000 barrels. What is going to be the position, if you can have a surplus of hops with an acreage of 25, 000 under cultivation, if you further encourage the production of more hops
You cannot dispose of the hops which you have got already. The Minister of Agriculture tells us that it will be a very severe thing for this country if the out-
put of hops is insufficient, and yet he tells us that unless the hop industry is protected there will be such an influx of foreign hops that they will be able to take all the market, and that none of it will be available for the home industry. Those two things cannot operate at once. Brewers in this country have to use two kinds of hops and they always do. To get what I am informed is a decent beer they not only want the home-grown hop, but they want an imported hop also. From 1919 the hop growers have been given ample opportunity to rehabilitate their industry and if, under the most stringent rules of this dictator of hops, they have failed to re-establish their own industry, what is there to justify us in believing that they are going to reestablish themselves four years hence I Obviously it is a mere question of handing over £4 per acre to an industry that could well take care of itself, if it utilised the credit facilities already at its disposal, organised itself on co-operative lines and did for itself what many other industries are compelled to do
I know that it may be argued by the Financial Secretary that the small grower of hops, unless protected, loses his industry altogether. It seems to me that this protection will do more to drive the small grower out, and leave the big cultivator of hops with a full command of the market than would be the case if we had a free market in hops. I think that. the principle is bad. The hop industry carried on fairly well before the War. They did not secure protection. They have gone up from 15, 000 acres in 1919 to 25, 000 acres under this Statecontrol operation referred to by the last speaker, and they have reached a stage now when the production of hops is strictly on a par with the consumption of beer if comparison is made with there-War consumption. Therefore, to encourage further the production of hops is to encourage the production of a surplus, and. make the industry not only less secure for the small hop grower, but to secure no real advance to the country as a whole as the result of this protection. I know that the ex-Minister of Agriculture gave no promise that after the expiry of the present control any protection would be introduced, and I feel that I am expressing his view at this moment when I say that the hop industry can help itself, if it is prepared
to do so, without protection. For that reason I shall support the Amendment.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: I intervene for a few minutes to refer to the very interesting and illuminating speech to which we listened this afternoon from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was vary much astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) declare in no unmistakable term that this tax on hops was nut for revenue purposes, but for Protection purposes. That is a very interesting statement, and one which is in complete contradiction of the statement made this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who declared, also in no unmistakable terms, that he was a Free Trader. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing a tax on hops for other purposes than for revenue, surely he is bringing in a measure of Protection. My right hon. Friend is candid enough to declare that that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done.

Sir R. SANDERS: The Chancellor said so.

Sir R. THOMAS: I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Chancellor stated that he was a Free Trader. If he is a Free Trader, surely it is inconsistent for him to bring in a measure of Protection, and this is a measure of Protection, unadulterated Protection.

Sir R. SANDERS: That is what he said.

Sir R. THOMAS: Whether hon. Gentlemen opposite believe in Protection or not is another matter, but no one can deny that this is a Measure of Protection—that is the point which I wish to make. That is the point I want to make. It was not devised, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, to meet a finely-balanced Budget. The whole argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon was the necessity of raising revenue to bring about this finely-balanced Budget. But he has gone beyond that; he has introduced into this Budget without any question, a Measure of Protection. Hon. Members cannot get away from that, and there is no use in the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken trying to belittle the opposition which we Free Traders are making to this Budget.
We are not making objection to this Budget for the purpose of raising revenue; we are objecting, and rightly objecting, to the principles of Free Trade being submerged under a Budget of this nature. This is a proposal to protect hop growers. I represent an agricultural constituency which does not grow hops. Is it fair for one part of the country to subsidise another part of the country? Has it ever occurred to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the hop grower represents the wealthiest section of the agricultural industry? No one can engage in the hop-growing industry without capital. There are many men engaged in agriculture to-day without capital, but they do not happen to be hop growers. It is a most remarkable thing that the man who least requires help and Protection belongs to the wealthiest section of the agricultural community to-day. There is no gainsaying that fact. An hon. Member opposite stated that there were losses made in hop growing. Does the hon. Member know of any industry that does not incur losses at some time or other? Certainly the hop industry occasionally sustains losses, but in the main more money has been made in hop growing in this country than in any other branch of agriculture.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: And more losses.

Sir R. THOMAS: That is only an additional proof of the prosperity of that industry, and not of the necessity for Protection. I would like to see some of the smallholders recognised, if the Government are going to protect agriculture. Many of these smallholders happen to be ex-service men. There are very few ex-service men engaged in the hop industry. If the Government are to introduce Protection or Preference at all, why do they leave out the smallholders, who are a very important section of the community?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would not be in order for the hon. Member to suggest alternative methods by Protection in other matters.

Sir R. THOMAS: With all respect, I am not counselling the Government to introduce any form of Protection whatever. I am condemning them for introducing a form of Protection, and am pointing out what an injustice they are doing to other sections of the community
that are not protected. I submit that that is relevant and germane to the discussion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In that case it would be in order for one of my colleagues to suggest, if measures of this kind were to be proposed, that the cutlery industry ought to have first consideration.

10.0 P.M.

Sir R. THOMAS: I was saying that in certain parts of the country the very wealthy members of the agricultural community who grow hops are protected. In my part of the country there are no hops grown, and we have 40,000 small holdings of under 50 acres on not an acre of which are hops grown. Therefore, I submit that this is not only Protection, but it is an injustice to a large section of the community.

Mr. THURTLE: I wanted to bring forward a case against this tax on hops, but in view of the representations of my Friends that the time of the House is needed for other matters, I do not propose to put forward my case now. I shall content myself with saying that I think this proposal is typical of the whole of the Budget. It is an attempt on the part of the Conservative Government to look after its friends. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was particularly able to look after his friends. We find that he gets this proposal from the Minister of Agriculture. I remember that the Minister of Agriculture about two months ago was able to extract from

the public purse a very large sum of money indeed for the purpose of subsidising home-grown beet sugar, in order to put that money into the pockets of the landlords. You have here a combination typical of the Conservative Government. You have the landlord, you have the Tory Government, and you have Mr. Bung the brewer—a very unholy combination, and that combination is engaged in this proposal in extracting, or attempting to extract, from the pockets of working men. who have not been given De single concession in this Budget, millions of money for the benefit of the landlords and the brewers. Briefly, that is why I am opposing this duty. I would have liked to have explained my reasons at length, but time does not permit.

Captain BENN: I want to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is the first of what, I believe, will be a series of protective duties for agriculture. In order to get it on record, I want him to assure us now that it is a temporary duty. We have had this assurance in reference to other duties, and it would be interesting to have it on record that the Government mean what they say, and intend to do it. If he would give that assurance, I should be very much obliged.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The duration of the duty is for four years.

Question put, That the words 'four years' stand part of the Resolution.

The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 146.

Division No 88.]
AYES
[10.7 p. m


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Henry B
Campbell, E. T.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cassels, J. D


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Blundell, F. N.
Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boothby, R. J. G
Chapman, Sir S


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Charteris, Brigadier-General J


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Brass, Captain W.
Christie, J. A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Briggs, J. Harold
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Richard George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Atkinson, C.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clarry, Reginald George


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clayton, G. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Bullock, Captain M
Cooper, A. Duff


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Couper, J. B.


Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Courtauid, Major J. S.


Bennett, A. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Berry, Sir George
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N


Bethell, A.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Raine, W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rawson, Alfred Cooner


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hunter-Western. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Huntlngfield, Lord
Remer, J. R.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hurd, Percy A
Remnant, Sir James


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & p'bl's)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Illffe. Sir Edward M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jacob, A. E.
Ropner, Major L.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Drewe, C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rye, F. G.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major I.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Ellis, R. G.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Savery, S. S.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Shepperson, E. W.


Fermoy, Lord
Lougher, L.
Slmms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fleming, D. P.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Ford, P. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Forestier-Walker, L.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Foster. Sir Harry S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcort)
Smithers, Waldron


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Macintyre, Ian
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gates, Percy 
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
McNeill, Rt. Hon Ronald John
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gee, Captain R.
Macquisten, F. A.
Storry Deans, R.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Strickland, sir Gerald


Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.


Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grace, John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Giyn K.
Styles, Captain H. Waiter


Grant, J. A.
Meller, R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, F. B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Gretton, Colonel John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyrea, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tinne, J. A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
 Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hammersley, S. S.
Murchison. C. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hanbury, C.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Warrender. Sir Victor


Harland, A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harrison, G. J. C.
Neville, R. J.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth. Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Watts, Dr. T.


Haslam, Henry C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wells, S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson. William G. (Petersfield)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bodford, Luton)
Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Heneage. Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Penny. Frederick George
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Henniker-Hugtian. Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perring, William George
Womersley, W. J.


Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebono)
Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Phllipson, Mabel
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Pielou. D. P.
Wood. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Pilcher, G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Homan, C. W. J.
pildltch, Sir Philip
Wragg, Herbert


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hopkins. J. W. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.



Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Radtord, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —




Mr. Margesson and Lord Stanley


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ammon, Charles George
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Barnes, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Barr, J.




Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)
Siesser, Sir Henry. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charieton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clowes, S.
Lee, F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dalton, Hush
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wallhead, Richard C.


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gillett, Georue M.
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Riley, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Harney, E. A
Roberts, Ht. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Shlels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Seventh Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. HAYDAY: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the two other Amendments standing in my name have been ruled out of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I was asked to take one Debate on the first Amendment. Therefore tile other Amendments fall to the ground.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment to trip Resolution in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Trees-Smith)-in line 2, to leave out the word year, and insert the words six months —is not one which I can take. I will call the hon. Member on the Main Question.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: This is the Resolution by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the Income Tax by 6d. in the £ involving a loss to the revenue of £24,000,000 this year, and of £32,000,000 in a full year. Of all the changes in the Budget, it is to this reduction of Income Tax and of Super-tax that we, on these benches, have the strongest objection. In the general Budget Debate other speakers and myself gave our broad objections to this reduction, but we wish to take this opportunity of summarising, I hope at not very great length, what our objections are, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that they are serious and, I think I may say, more or less scientific and well founded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that this reduction of Income Tax and Super-tax would be an encouragement to enterprise through a relief of the burden resting upon industry, anti practically every newspaper has been telling us for the last six months that, if you wish to encourage
enterprise and to remove the burden upon it, a reduction of the Income Tax was the best method of carrying out that purpose; but we believe that this is one of the most mischievous delusions which the associations, chambers, and federations of British industry are continually trying to impress upon the public mind, anti we wish to take this opportunity of showing exactly why we consider it a delusion, not merely on the general principles of Socialism, but basing our contention upon the arguments of the Federation of British Industries itself
We say that, if you wish to stimulate industry and enterprise, you ought to relieve your taxation in such a way as to concentrate your relief upon the active and vital factors in industry upon which enterprise depends, and that is what a relief of the Income Tax fails to do. It gives certain relief to these factors, but it spreads the relief at the same time over the whole interest-receiving, bond-owning, passive rentier class—it cannot be denied that this will relieve them as much as anybody else—the, class who do nothing to help enterprise and industry, but who merely receive the products of the labour and enterprise of others
Does it assist enterprise and industry to reduce the Income Tax of those who live upon rents, or mortgages, or the different classes of shareholders, or to those who have retired and live on pensions? I say that in this Parliament we are upon strong ground, because that is an argument which I have never yet heard answered, and I should like to hear an answer to-night. It is as argument based upon the figures collected by Sir Josiah Stamp, who has pointed out again and again that five-sixths of the reduction in Income Tax goes to that class of Income Tax payers whose influence upon enterprise and industry is practically negligible, and only one-sixth goes to the active elements of the business community. It is not the first time I have used the argument, but I have not yet had it answered
May I take another point? We say that of all taxes that are imposed the Income Tax is almost the best in its success in raising revenue without an immediate burden upon industry and enterprise. For this reason—if I may in two or three sentences develop what we believe is a serious argument—that on
the whole the Income Tax does not add to the price of the things which British industry produces Let me explain. A tax will increase the price if it adds to the standing charges on a business, or to the cost of production. That surely is true! We quite see that no manufacturer is going to continue his business if, in the long run, he cannot meet the standing charges, therefore, he must charge a price to cover them. But the Income Tax is only paid out of the profits that are left after the standing charges and the cost of production has been covered. If there are no profits there is no tax. Hon. Members may be amused at that, but I shall be pleased if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer that argument
That leads us to this conclusion, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not diminishing the total taxation which he is levying. I think he is sightly increasing it. He has not diminished the total. We say that if you are going to levy a certain amount in taxation and you reduce the Income Tax, and then in order to make up the sum you have lost you impose a charge which adds to the standing charges of the business and the cost of production you have not increased the revenue one sixth but delivered a blow at trade and industry as a whole. That is exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, because he has reduced the Income Tax, and lost a sum of about 232,000,000 in a full year. It is because of that fact that he has been compelled to place this orphans, widows, and old age pensions scheme upon a contributory basis. What does that mean? It means that he has increased the standing charges on business, and compelled manufacturers to increase their prices at the rate of about £1 per man every year. Take the export trade. During discussions on unemployment it has been pointed out by Members on every side of the House that the greater amount of unemployment is concentrated on the export trades, and we have been told that as a result the export. trades are paying practically no dividends and receiving no profits. I accept the statement. What is their position? Under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme those export trades have got their charges increased at the rate of £1 per man per year, and, therefore, are com-
pelled to increase their prices in those very neutral markets where they have to hold their own in competition with the foreigner. An hon. Member asks about Income Tax.

Captain BRASS: I said, Because of the Income Tax.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am talking about the contributory system.

Captain BRASS: And I am talking about. the Income Tax.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Well, let us take the Income Tax. Since the whole argument is that those trades are making no profits and receiving no dividends, there would be no Income Tax at all. I come to my last point. In the general Budget Debate I gave certain figures, on which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury commented next day, of the relief that the reduction Income Tax gave to different groups of Income Tax payers. I pointed out that the class of Income Tax payers who earned about 1500 a year will obtain a relief of about £6. I then said that the Super-tax payers as a whole, the class over £2, 000 a year, will obtain from this Budget, on au average, £150 a year each.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On the Income Tax alone?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: On Income. Tax alone. And then I said that if you take the class over £5, 000 a year, the super Super-tax payers, they will obtain on an average out of this Budget £300 from the reduction of Income Tax and another 8200 a year from the reduction of Supertax, making £500 a year all told. [An HON. MEMBER: Rubbish !] An hon. Member opposite says rubbish. As a matter of fact, the Financial Secretary answered me the next day, and he did not contradict my statement. What he did was to give statistics with quite different results to mine, but he did not dispute the accuracy of the facts which I have just placed before the House. The Financial Secretary based his figures upon percentages, and consequently he got different results. I am not going to enter into a detailed dispute about statistics of this sort. Broadly, our whole criticism is summarised in this way. When you are introducing a Budget you ought to consider the special circumstances of the year in which it. is opened
At this moment we are suffering from trade depression of a rather special
character, because so much of it is concentrated on a small group of trades mainly those engaged in the export business. Our contention is that. under these circumstances you should have adopted a system by which the relief was given to those trades and industries which were struggling against the gravest difficulties. Instead of that, the Government have adopted a system by which the greatest relief is given to those individuals who are already obtaining the greatest share of the national wealth. That is our criticism of this Budget, and that is why we say, and shall continue to repeat., that this is a Budget produced by rich men for rich men, and it is the most selfish Budget since the close of the War.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to join in the opposition to the reduction of the Income Tax, and I would like to preface my remarks by saying that in my opinion this is the biggest fraud of a Budget on the people of this country that we have ever known. It is a Budget that purports to give relief here and there, and in the end, as we have just heard, it gives no relief at all. The workers, we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, got their relief last year by the reduction of the Tea Duty. but the right hon. Gentleman forgot that a few minutes before, he admitted that the bulk of that relief had been taken by the profiteers in the tea business. and that relief was wiped out ban increase in the price of tea. I think that everybody will agree that the proper method of paying the necessary cost of running the nation should be a levy on all the adult population in accordance with their ability to pay.
I would sweep away every tax except the Income Tax, in order that people should pay in accordance with their ability to pay. The present system, under which you have this juggling with fancy taxes. is that nobody in the country, certainly, no working woman, knows how much she has to pay in rates or taxes year by year. It is well known that the method of covering up taxation in a fashion such as is developed in this Budget, is one deliberately designed to disguise the fact that in the end the working class have to bear the brunt of the burden of carrying on the country. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement with reference to mothers' pensions, told us that
the employers are going to get their relief for the 4d. per week per man in this reduction of the Income Tax rate from 4s. 6d. to 4s. I think that that is about as mean a thing as any Chancellor could do, because it is attempting to carry cut an entirely new policy with regard to the victims of our industrial system. Up to the present, society, in one way or another, has borne the cost of maintaining the victims. It may be that they have been maintained in a very miserable, niggardly, mean manner, but the cost has been put upon the community, either in the shape of rates or taxes. Now the right hon. Gentleman, in, I think, a very clever, a very astute, and, I repeat, a very mean manner, is going to put upon the working class the burden of maintaining the victims of the industrial system.
He and the Government are also going to attack the men who are in receipt of unemployment benefit. He made the extraordinary statement, for him, the other night, that he was rather disturbed —I am not sure that that is the exact word—that he could not understand how it was that trade was flourishing and still there was such a volume of unemployment. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who founded the first Employment. Exchanges, would have known that the reason for that is very simple indeed. It is that the methods of production have been so speeded up, so improved that the output per man is so much greater to-day that you can have a bigger volume of production and fewer people employed. I should have thought that there would have been no dispute with the right hon. Gentleman about that, because, as I have said, he has had some experience in matters connected with industry. That brings me to this, that all this outcry against paying Income Tax is to me most extraordinary. Before I had to pay Income Tax, I should have been at any time very glad to have been in receipt of the income on which to pay a tax, and I do not understand people who get huge incomes worrying themselves because a tax is levied upon those incomes. It is the want of an income that worries most of the people in my constituency.
It is said that the Income Tax hurts industry, that it prevents the develop-
ment of industry. I am going to give some figures, not from the "Daily Herald," or from any Bolshevik or Labour newspaper, but from newspapers likethe "Economist" and the "Statist." If you take the net capital of estates assessed for Death Duties, for the year 1913-14, it amounted to £282, 000, 000, for 1921-22 to £402, 000, 000, and for 1922-23 to £431, 000, 000. It looks as though the heavier you are taxed the better you do. Then the gross income brought under review for Income Tax in 1913-14 was £1, 167, 000, 000, and in 1922-23 £2, 900, 000, 000, and it seems to me that proves conclusively that the levying of Income Tax and Super-tax has not prevented people making a good deal of money, and if you wonder why people are unemployed it is due to the fact I just spoke about. Then, apart from rent and War Loan dividends, the money appears to come in in increasing amount from what are called our depressed industries. Of £134. 000, 000 of industrial shares comprised in deceased estates in 1922-23, SI per cent. was held by owners of estates exceeding £10, 000 in value. The new capital in United Kingdom business in the first quarter of 1913 was only 27, 500, 000, butin 1925, after the most terrific war in history, when the country is told it has not the means of standing on its feet, there was new capital in the first quarter of £37. 400, 000 an increase Of £30, 000, 000
Those figures show that, in spite of the increase in unemployment, industrial profits must be going up. The "Times" newspaper, which I suppose will not be denounced as a Socialist paper, says industries have been able to restore a margin of profit on a level of prices and output which does not permit the full employment of labour in the industry. That really is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry the other day. The "Economist" says if you take an analysis of industrial profits, taking the accounts published during the last quarter, they show that 425 companies made a profit of:E45, 000, 000, as compared with £41, 000, 000 in the previous year, an increase of 9. 1 per cent. That is only the culmination. Remember, you have had Super-tax and Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty, and still the people who are in control go on making money in
this fashion. if you take net profits for 1922, 7 per cent. —these are average profits-1923, 9. 8 per cent.:1925, first quarter, 11 per cent. —if it is said that any of these are too small. remember there is such a thing as watered capital. The same newspaper gives us 10 companies whose capital has been watered down. I do not think I ought to read out the names, but I will give the figures. They are big industrial concerns, and when you are considering the rate of interest you must also take into account that that is interest on a considerably watered capital. One com pany £2, 805, 000, another £2, 000, 000, another £2, 000, 000, another £2, 000, 000, another 11, 534, 000, another £1, 095, 000, another £1, 100, 000, another £1, 000, 000, the next £800, 000, the next £573, 000. That is a total of £15, 000, 000 of watered capital in 10 companies. Then take profits in coal. There is one of the biggest companies in South Wales, where the men are literally starving to-day. Their profits in 1913 were £338, 500, and in 1923 £523, 800. In 1924, in spite of the heavy reduction, it is still about the 1913 figure. £356, 800. Take another of the big South Wales companies. In 1914 £215, 300, and in 1921 £578, 000. That is a company operating in the midst of the South Wales coalfield, where we are told it is the worker's wages and the ca'canny of the workers that has brought about the depression in the South Wales mining trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "Among how many companies were these profits distributed?"] I do not care. They made the profits, that is all I care about. I can give you the companies if you would like them read out.

Captain A. EVANS: Would the horn. Gentleman give the capital invested in these industries?

Mr. LANSBURY: No, I will not! [Laughter.] Certainly I will not. The point is. —

Mr. SPEAKER: We are working now under an arrangement made by the House. I think the less interruption we have the better, in order to get on with the business.

Captain EVANS: I apologise.

Mr. LANSBURY: The point I am making all the time is that, in spite of the unemployment, in spite of the million
and a-quarter of men out of work, and in spite of the Super-tax, Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax, the dividends are going up for these various companies. It is not a question of there being no money. If you take shipping, one big company in 1913 made £430, 200, and in 1924 £747, 800. Another one made £554, 700 in 1913, and £976, 200 in 1924—and a lot more with which I will not bother the House, because we are working to a time-table. But if you take the wages of the workers during this same period—and I could have given you not only shipping companies and coal companies, but engineering companies and distributing companics, every one of whose profits had been going up—you will find the workers' wages have been going down. Something like £500, 000, 000 has been taken off the wages of the working class, and we are told now in this Budget that the scheme which the Government are going to bring in to finance. the widows' pensions and pensions for orphans, and old age pensions, means that the workers must pay the cost themselves. The people who ought to pay are those who are taking these profits and dividends, and instead of cutting down Income Tax and by putting a little on the Death Duties taking something off the Super-tax, we should have raised more money by Income Tax and Death Duties, and have a bigger Super-tax. I think the money for these purposes of social service should come from where the money is, and I think the place where the money is is in those companies and those people who are taking the money in the earnings of the workers in the fashion that I have just read out. Do what we will, and say what we may, in the end it is only the working people who pay everything that there is to be paid in the community. There is no money that comes out of the pits and no money that comes from shipping which they do not provide. There is no mining rent and royalty owner who gets a farthing unless the worker goes into the mine to dig the coal to enable the tax to be paid on the coal getting. That is as clear as daylight.
All the time in this House we are being told that there is no money for social reform. We are told that we must be very economical and must not waste any money. If we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer with real courage he would
have tackled the problem of the War Debt, which means that £300, 000. 000 or so comes out of one pocket of the rich man and into the other pocket of the rich man. We are told that there are a large number of poor people who hold War stock; but the bulk who hold War stock are rich people. We can find all the money needed to pay the debt on the war loan, all the money needed to provide for future wars, and all the money needed for everything else but social reform. Out of a Budget of £800, 000, 000 this year, how much is going to be spent on the actual services for the people. About £200. 000, 000. The rest goes in payment for the debts of the War, in preparing for future wars, and for the machinery of government. It is time that the common, ordinary people who work hard in order that you may have this money with which to gamble were considered. Instead of trying to levy more charges on them week after week for the pensions you are going to provide for them, because they cannot provide for themselves because they are robbed every day at. their work, the House ought to revise the whole of the Budget, and see that we provide the means for maintaining the victims of the industrial system.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are working, as you have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, under a definite agreement, and in view of that it would be impossible for me to attempt to make an adequate reply to the very interesting speeches to which we have listened. Those speeches raise very wide and deep disputes. The hon. Member who spoke last developed an entirely new theory of taxation, which I should very much like, if time permitted, to examine in detail. He is what we may call a single taxer. His single tax is the Income Tax. He said that the single tax that he would vote for would he the Income Tax.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

11. 0 P. M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: He would like to see all the money raised by Income Tax. That is an interesting theory, which runs counter to the veryimportant theory of those who say that the land should provide all taxation by means of the taxation of land values. There is another very important theory for raising revenue put
forward by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), that of the Capital Levy. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has a perfect right to speak on these matters. We all know the success and skill with which he guided the finances of Poplar, and I can assure him that his theories will always be followed with the greatest attention by His Majesty's Government. After all we are only at the beginning of these things, and it would he a great pity if the Budget of the year went through without these issues being treated in the full light of day in solid and effective debate. Within the limits of time which are imposed on us to-night, I could not in justice to the arguments of hon. Members put our counter case. All I will permit myself to say is that, terrible as are the conditions in this country, unjust and invidious as the hon. Member considers its taxation to be, harsh and oppressive as is the lot of the wage-earning class, according to him, nevertheless, there is no country in the world where the rate of direct taxation is so high, or where the direct taxation is so punctiliously paid.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: They are able to pay it better than any other country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know about that. I should have thought That in the United States, with its enormous accumulation of wealth and the comparatively small burden which it has to bear as the outcome of the Great War, they could have afforded to pay a higher ratio of direct taxation in proportion to their total budget than we. in this country are able to do. But, however that may be, the fact remains that this country pays a larger proportion of its expenses in direct taxation by Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties than any other country. The second fact is that the social services in this country of all kinds are on a more extensive scale, and, on the whole. on a higher level than those of any other country, not. even excluding the wealthy, prosperous United States of America. The third fact is that. in this country, where the rate of direct taxation is at a maximum, unprecedented, unparalleled, incomparable, there is also this sinister and singular manifestation of unemployment in its extreme form. I think that these are matters which require to he con-
sidered before a hasty judgment is formed on the position which is so greatly deplored by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment
The argument of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley suggests that it is better not to make any reduction in the Income Tax. Indeed, we are told that it should be very greatly increased. The first reason against that is that this country is more highly taxed in this respect titan any other country. What is the second reason? It is that the ratio between direct and indirect taxation had, during the War, been markedly altered to the disadvantage of the direct taxpayer. It was about 50-50 before the War. It mounted in 1923 to 63½direct against 36; indirect. Then came the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made enormous remissions of indirect taxation. do not know that he got any great measure of enthusiastic reward or return from the electorate for those great remissions. Rut I am quite ready to recognise that they were benevolently conceived. He raised the ratio of direct taxation from 63 per cent. to 66i per cent., and depressed the ratio of indirect taxation from 36½ to 33½ per cent. All that the present Budget does is to balance a little that considerable change. We alter the relation of direct and indirect taxation very slightly indeed—almost exactly 1 percent. The taxation, as the result of this Budget, will be 65. 9 per cent. direct and 34. 1 percent. indirect; that is to say, it is 1 percent mole favourable to the direct taxpayer than the relation established by the right ton. Gentleman opposite, and about, 2 per cent. less favourable to the direct taxpayer than the conditions which existed before his Budget of last year. It is clear, therefore, that all we are doing, in giving a remission of 6d. in the C o; the standard rate of Income Tax, is to balance fairly the remission of indirect taxation of which the right hon. Gentleman made such a feature last year. The right hon. Gentleman foresaw that some action of this kind would be necessary. because last year, in the course of the Budget Debate, speaking as the first Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Socialist party, and with the full authority which attached to aim in his position, and with the full authority which attached to him apart from his
position, because of his influence in his party, he said:
 He must not be taken to imply that he anticipated the permanent maintenance of a 4s. tid. Income Tax. 
I think that that was quite a natural thing to say. He felt, perhaps, that he would have only one Budget to produce—I mean on that occasion—and he wished to make a great remission of indirect taxation. He thought it only fair to state that he saw no reason to believe that the Income Tax was permanently to remain at the rate of 4s. 6d. So we, in the step which we have taken, in balancing, in giving a counterpart of his Budget of last year, are really only following out the policy which he recommended and foreshadowed last year. There are other important issues. but I find it the less necessary to discuss them, because the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, and the speech of the hon. Member far Poplar [HON. MEMBERS: Bow and Bromley!]—Bow and Bromley. I beg the hon. Member's pardon; its fame lingers. The two speeches together state the opposite of the views which we hold, the opposite of the. principles on which we are administering the finances of the country, so clearly, so simply and so plainly, that I could not leave the question in better circumstances to the judgment of the House.

Mr. RAMSAYMacDONALD: I do not rise to pursue the Debate. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that. it would be a very delightful exercise to examine the difference between his persiflage and his economic arguments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he proposes to justify certain provisions of the Budget, does not fulfil his duty, either to this House or to the country, to say that a speech made by one hon. Member is answered by a speech made by another hon. Member, which we want him to answer. We will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer other opportunities when the. Finance Bill is before us to answer the question, why it is he introduces this reduction of 6d. in the pound on the Income Tax. I can assure him, while we listen to his humour with great interest, we will not be misled, as some hon. Members opposite apparently are. that his humour is an economic argument justifying this proposal. But why I have
risen is to say that we are working, as has been said, under an agreement, and we. want to carry it out. The agreement was that by half-past eleven we should give these Resolutions, with the exception 4 the silk Resolutions. Therefore, what propose to do is that we should now have a Division on this Income Tax Resolution, and also a Division on the Super-tax Resolution, and then the. others can go for the time being, and further Debate. be postponed until we have the matter before us in connection with the Finance Bill.

Captain BENN: In order to avoid misunderstanding, I hope that when the question of the Super-tax reduction is put, someone representing those among whom I sit will have an opportunity briefly to express our position.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I think it is very unfortunate that so much time has been taken up over the McKenna Duties and the Hop Duty, as not to leave a fair chance to some Members on this side who desired to deal with the Super-tax and Death Duties. I, personally, have no desire in any way to interfere with any arrangement that has been made, but I must express my regret that many on this side who wished to discuss these matters, and some had put clown Amendments, are entirely deprived of the opportunity of discussing matters of very great importance to this country.

Question put,  That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution. .

The House divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 136.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[11. 15p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cassels, J. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet. Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Falls, Sir Charles F.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Charterls, Brlgadier-General J.
Fermoy, Lord


Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Fleming, D. P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Christie, J. A.
Ford. P. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Forestier-Walker, L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forrest, W.


Ashmead-Bartiett, E.
Clarry, Reginald George
Foster, Sir Harry S


Astbury. Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Clayton, G. C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Atkinson, C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.
Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cooper, A. Duff
Galbraith, J. F. w.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cope, Major William
Ganzonl, Sir John


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Gee, Captain R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drnke)
Craig, Ernest(Chester, Crewe)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Goff. Sir Park


Bethell. A.
Crook, C. W.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bettcrton, Henry B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derilend)
Grace, John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grant, J. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w.E)


Boothby. R. J. G.
Curzon. Captain Viscount
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gretton, Colonel John


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brass, Captain W.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bridgeman Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davidson, Major-General Sir John. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Briggs J. Harold
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Kail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davles. Sir Thomas (Cirencestcr)
Hammersicy, S. S.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hanbury, C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Harland, A.


Brown, Maj, D.C.(N'th'j'd., Hexham)
Drewe, C.
Harney. E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Duckworth, John
Harrison. G. J. C.


Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bullock, Captain M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes.)


Burman, J. B
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Haslam, Henry C.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hawke, John Anthony


Burton Colonel H. W.
Eillis, R. G.
Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, Lord(Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxt'd, Henley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Calne Gordon Halt
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Campbell, E. T.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shepperson, E. W.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Skelton, A. N.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n &Kinc'dlne,C.)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smithers, Waldron


Homan, C. W. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Murchison, C. K.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
sprot, sir Alexander


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge)
steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nicholson. O. (Westminster)
Storry Deans, R.


Huntingfield, Lord
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nuttall, Ellis
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hutchison. G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Oakley, T.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ormsby. Gore, Hon. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth Cen'l)
Owen, Major G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Jacob, A. E.
Penny, Frederick George
Sykes, Major-Gen, sir Frederick H.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Templeton, W. P.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Perring, William George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South)


King. Captain Henry Douglas
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tinne, J. A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Phllipson Mabel
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Pielou, D. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Lane Fox, Colonel George R.
Pitcher, G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Leigh, Sir John(Clapham)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Radford, E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Raino, W.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Loder, J. de V.
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisie)


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Watts, Dr. T.


Lougher, L.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wells, S. R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Luce, Major-Gen. sir Richard Harman
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Lumley, L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Macdonald, sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rentoul. G. S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macintyre, Ian
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wise, Sir Fredric


McLean, Major A
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macmillan, Captain H.
Ropner, Major L.
Womersley, W. J.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


McNelll, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rye F. G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W).


Macquisten, F. A.
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wragg, Herbert


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanders, Sir Robert A.



Margesson, Capt. D.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Meller, R. J.
Savery, S. S.
Barnston.


Merriman, F. B.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Connolly, M.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Ammon, Charles George
Cove, W. G.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hardle. George D.


Barnes, A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Barr, J.
Dennison, R.
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Batey, Joseph
Duncan. C.
Hayday, Arthur


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dunnico, H.
Hayes, John Henry


Broad, F. A
Gillett, George M.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bromfield, William
Gosling, Harry
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hirst, G. H.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Cape, Thomas
Greenall, T.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
John. William (Rhondda, West)


Clowes, S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, E.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Varley, Frank B.


Lansbury, George
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, john James
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wallhead, Richard C


Lee, F.
Rose, Frank H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lindley, F. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lowth, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lunn, William
Sexton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Mackinder, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, J. C.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Westwood, J.


March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Maxton, James
Smillie, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wignall, James


Montague, Frederick
Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Murnin, H.
Snell, Harry
Williams, Or. J. H (Lianelly)


Naylor, T. E
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Oliver, George Harold
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
 Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
 Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W
Stamford, T. w
Windsor, Walter


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell
Wright, W.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, R. A.



Potts, John S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.


Eighth Resolution read a Second time.

SUPER-TAX

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Sir ALFRED MOND: I do not want now to detain the House, but I feel bound, on behalf of those with whom I am associated, to make an immediate protest against the proposal to reduce the Supertax at the time when the Government are proposing a new pensions scheme that will add a very serious sum to the standing charges on industry. In our view the Super-tax is better able to contribute to the pensions than industry, which in many cases is not only making no profits, but is scarcely able to meet the standing charges. Therefore, we shall vote against this Super-tax Resolution and elaborate our reasons when there is more time available.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In the moment that is left I should like, on behalf of the Members on the Labour benches, to express our sincere regrets that we are not allowed to discuss this time what, we take to be a most pernicious part of this most pernicious Budget. At a time when, in two years, incomes assessable to Income Tax have risen by £131, 000, 000, on the Chancellor's own figures, and when the wages paid to the working classes have fallen by £600, 000, 000, we take it to be a scandal and a disgrace that the incomes over £2, 000 of people who do not require relief should be given relief in the manner proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we propose to vote against this Super-tax Resolution.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 153.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[11. 30 p. m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brittain, Sir Harry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Albery, Irving James
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brown, Maj, D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bennett, A. J.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bethell, A.
Bullock, Captain M.


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Betterton, Henry B.
Burman, J. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F, W.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Atholl, Duchess of
Blundcll, F. N.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Atkinson, C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Caine, Gordon Hall


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Campbell, E. T.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brass, Captain W.
Cassels, J. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Briggs, J. Harold
Cazalet. Captain Victor A.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. v. L. (Bootie)
Perkins, colonel E. K.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perring, William George


Christie, J. A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Philipson, Mabel


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,Scar. Wh'by)
Pielou, D. P.


Clayton, G. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ramsden, E.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cooper A. Duff
Homan, C. W. J.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Remer, J. R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry(Islington, N.)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Remnant, Sir James


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, G. S


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crookshank Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hurd. Percy A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Roberts, Samuel (Hertford, Hersford)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Ropner, Major L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggies-Brlse, Major E. A.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jacob, A. E.
Rye, F. G.


Davies A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Sir Thomas(Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Futney)


Dawson Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Drewe, C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Duckworth John
Lamb, J. 0
Sanderson, sir Frank


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavt D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Savery, S. S.


Edwards John H. (Accrington)
Lister, Conliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Elliot Captain Walter E.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ellis R. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Erskine, James Maicolm Monteith
Loder, J. de V.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, south)
Lord, Walter Greaves
Skelton, A. N.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)
Lougher, L.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Everard W. Lindsay
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n &Kln'dlne. C.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.
smithers, Waldron


Falls, Sir Charles F.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fermoy Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Fleming D. P.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fleming, D. P.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Forestler. Walker, L.
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Foster, sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Foxcroft Captain C. T.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Storry Deans, R.


Fraser Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macquisten, F. A.
Strickland sir Gerald


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Crichton- Lord C.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-
Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)


Galbraith J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Ganzonl sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gates, Parcy
Margesson, Captain D.
Sugden, sir Wilfed


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Sykes Major-Gen. sir Frderick H.


Gee, Captain R.
Meller, R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen s.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir john
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon. S.)


Glyn, Major R. G. c.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tinne. J. A.


Golf Sir Park
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Grant, J. A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Warrender, Sir Victor


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Grotrian, H. Brent
Murchlson, C. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watts, Dr. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neville, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Hammersley, S. S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, Lieut.-Colonel-G. Dalrymple


Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harland, A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oakley, T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Haslam, Henry C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wise, Sir Frederic


Hawke, John Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wolmer, Viscount


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)




Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Wragg, Herbert
Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


wood, Sir s. Hill- (High Peak)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fits, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Siesser, Sir Henry H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, R'hithe)


Briant, Frank
Jones J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Bromfleld, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Kirk wood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Charieton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thurtie, E.


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton. James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon, J.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Radford, E. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)



Hardle, George D.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne


Resolution agreed to.

ESTATE DUTY (ALTERATION OF SCALE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Captain BOURNE: In view of the arrangement to which, Sir, you have already referred, I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name, but I hope when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill takes place hon. Members who, like myself, have some views on this policy, may be given a chance to express their opinion. I also hope that hon. Members opposite will recollect that this change in taxation
means very serious burdens on certain classes, and is worthy of discussion in this House.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I cannot hope that anything I say will have any effect, but that does not absolve me from the duty, as I conceive it, of uttering an emphatic protest. against this arrangement which has been made to-night, and the weight which has been given to it. Firstly, a very harmless interruption by an hon. Member opposite was adversely criticised. Secondly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had no time to reply to arguments which had been put forward. We might as well not have had
a debate at all. Thirdly, the Leader of the Opposition said we should now have a Division. I consider that to be entirely contrary to the duties and privileges of those who sit on the Back Benches of the House of Commons, and I protest with all my strength against it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) that there will be ample time for discussion of this subject in the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. I would like to remind the House, and especially those who have, perhaps, not been so long in it, that, as a matter of fact, we are giving a longer time to this stage of the discussion than has been given for many years. For the general convenience of the House, and to avoid unduly late sittings, this arrangement was come to by general assent. It happens sometimes that when these arrangements are reached, it is not possible to control the allocation of time as among the various subjects, so some subjects necessarily suffer. But with any allocation that is made by arrangement with the House or otherwise, in the later stages of the discussion, care must be taken, of course, to rectify any unfairness.

Captain BENN: In order to correct the impression which I am sure the Prime Minister did not want to give, I ought to say that, before the War, it was customary to give much more time, and that the
practice to which he refers is post-War practice,.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree, but it is also to be remembered that, since the War, there has been so much necessary legislation to be carried.

REPORT [30th April.]

Resolution reported,

AMENDMENT OF LAW.

"That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with Finance."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve 'Minutes before Twelve o'clock,